Surrogate Fail

Which conservative strategist decided it was a good idea to make a convicted sex offender  the public face of the TEA Party’s battle for legislature in the Flathead?

For what is perhaps one of the most bizarre  evolutions in the ongoing kerfuffle between TEA Party extremists and the more main street brand of Republicans, we turn to the Flathead.

Ron Glick a “self-professed political prisoner” and convicted sex offender has put out a press release accusing Republican former police chief Frank Garner of “corruption” and “retaliation” against Mr. Glick.  Glick says he spent 5 years in prison and now lives as a registered sex offender not because of his own actions but because Glick filed a lawsuit against Garner, who was police chief when this convicted sex offender was arrested and put away.

Garner is running against TEA Party conservative Ronalee Skees, wife of Derek Skees, a former legislator who is now running for PSC.

The press release, opens with:

“Ron Glick was a successful director of a seven year old charitable nonprofit aimed at providing educational activities for youth.  Today, Mr. Glick has survived five years incarceration in prison and is a registered sex offender because – as he alleges – Frank Garner retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit in the local courts against him.”

Yes, this is a convicted criminal who is blaming the police chief for his crime.

No word yet from Ronalee and Derek Skees on their position over Glick’s accusations, but I’m sure the local press will be asking questions soon. If the TEA Party or campaign was involved with this, it smacks of the most imbecilic desperation.  If they were not involved, this appears to be a reason to vote for Garner in the primary.  Most people would prefer sex offenders to be held accountable.

Glick’s entire press release is below the fold.  He’s also put out a youtube video statement.

If the TEA partiers can’t enlist some better spokespeople to support their campaigns, they’re in trouble.


Visit for the related media content to this press release.

Frank Garner Labeled As Politically Corrupt
Victim of Montana House District 7 Seat Candidate Speaks Out

Ron Glick, self-identified U.S. Political Prisoner, alleges abuse of office against Garner
In 2003, Ron Glick was a successful director of a seven year old charitable nonprofit aimed at providing educational activities for youth.  Today, Mr. Glick has survived five years incarceration in prison and is a registered sex offender because – as he alleges – Frank Garner retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit in the local courts against him.

Ron Glick posted a public video on YouTube on May 4, 2014 (, relating abuse at the hands of Montana House District 7 seat candidate Frank Garner that, at the very least, attests to elements of corruption, official misconduct, witness tampering and abuse of office.  Mr. Garner served as the Police Chief of the Kalispell Police Department in 2003 when Mr. Glick filed a lawsuit against Mr. Garner, the City of Kalispell, MT, and several other officials (Case No. DV 03-572, Montana Eleventh Judicial District), for ongoing harassments directed against him by Mr. Garner and others for his advocacy against the Kalispell Police Department, a lawsuit that was never completed because Mr. Glick was imprisoned shortly after filing it.  Mr. Glick alleges in his YouTube video that his incarceration was in direct retaliation for the lawsuit.

Mr. Glick states in the video that his girlfriend’s daughters were abducted two days after filing suit and that he was incarcerated for sixteen  months without a trial or probable cause hearing, followed by a “kangaroo court” trial, and that the state’s “manufactured witness”, Frank Allen, was dead ten days after his trial.  He also alleges that the charging documents were filed against him at 4:33am, and that they were authorized by the judge at 4:44am, though only with a stamp, not signature (official record of Mr. Glick’s prosecution (Case No. DC 04-066, Montana Eleventh Judicial District) supports this allegation).  Mr. Glick further alleges that all of this was “spearheaded” by Mr. Garner.

Mr. Glick further attests to a conversation between himself and Mr. Garner when Mr. Glick sought to obtain police records.  According to Mr. Glick, Mr. Garner not only refused to comply with Montana law regarding production of official records, but Mr. Garner also retorted in response to what authority he had to deny the request, “Under what authority?  Because I say so, that’s what authorty [sic].”

If taken as true, this is an extremely harsh representation of an individual seeking a first term state political office.  Through Ron Glick’s testimony, Frank Garner is presented as a corrupt official who is only seeking to expand his existing corrupt influence.  Mr. Garner was not able to be reached for comment.



70 Comments on "Surrogate Fail"

  1. Amazing – yet another person who makes absolutely no effort to pay attention to the content of the video. All you want to do is attack the source, rather than the content. Yet another so-called media source that has made no effort to actually discuss the allegations made in the video, made no effort to confirm or deny their validity – simply attack the source. Yet another, “Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain – look at all the fire and brimstone exploding over there” attack.

    Why is it that so many people are focusing on the fact that I am a convicted sex offender, and not a single person has asked for whether the claims made have any basis in fact?

    Your article is identical to the overall attacks on me – I am a convicted sex offender, so no one should listen to me for that reason alone. Besmirch me, defame me, ignore me – all because I am a registered sex offender. Ignore that the original investigation was dismissed and only reopened in retaliation months later by Garner himself. Ignore that Garner was sued and that my arrest conveniently blocked me from proceeding with that suit until a conviction could be obtained that deprived me continuing with the case (federal court ruled that I can no longer pursue the complaint because a civil case cannot be used to undermine a criminal conviction, in spite of the fact the claim was made long before charges were even filed). Forget the fact that Garner threatened to arrest anyone who tried to serve him with legal process. Neglect to look at the fact that I would not even *be* a convicted sex offender if Frank Garner had not reopened a police investigation that had already been closed because there had not been any merit to the original allegation. Disregard that *all* of this happened not only before there was ever a conviction against me, but before there was ever even a charge – and *after* the original investigations were concluded saying there was no merit to the complaint.

    Do all of this and focus on the one fact Garner wants you to: Ron Glick is a convicted sex offender. Do this, and Garner gets a free pass on all his criminal misconduct.

    This is not about whether a sex offender is held accountable – there was never a sex offense in the first place. Kalispell Police Department and Child and Family Services determined that there had been no offense committed in September, 2003. Frank Garner had the investigations reopened in October, 2003, when I asked for the records of the investigation because he was fearful of his department’s liability. There had been no new evidence, and the alleged victim had recanted her allegation altogether after the investigations were closed. The only reason this charge was pursued against me was to accomplish this exact thing – to discredit the fact that I had filed charges against Garner and his department for criminal misconduct and malfeasance.

    Your position is clear – you support Frank Garner, and you will lash out at *anything* other than the facts. I challenge you to address the actual documents – I challenge you to actually review the facts. Don’t just defend the horse you are backing by attacking me – take a look at the actual evidence and take an informed position.

    For the record, my civil liberties have been deprived to me for over ten years now. You are clearly amongst the people who want people to ignore all that has really happened – and the only reason you would want that would be to give people like Garner the freedom to continue with the ability to do this kind of thing to others. So maybe anyone reading this should be asking the question – why are so many people trying to deflect blame away from Garner rather than address the issues raised in my video? Lot has been said over this, but *no one* has actually addressed that…

  2. Jan, I had previously posted the original complaint letter on my blog:

    In my video testimonial, I set out the specifics for my reasons for filing the suit, just as I assumed the complaint itself was a matter of public record, and therefore when referencing it that all of this was already spelled out. I assume in your asking that this is not the case, and therefore I have decided to let the record speak for itself by posting the actual complaint on my blog, as well:

    I remain open to answering any other questions you may have.

    • It isn’t clear from the links you posted what your lawsuit was actually about. I go to your links and I get:

      “This is it – the abuse may have pre-existed this letter, but just as the Fort Sumter incursion that started the War Between the States (aka, the US Civil War) was preluded by years of abuse against the southern states, so too was this the act that took this conflict beyond the simple investigation that – it turned out later – would have fallen apart on its own merits within weeks of writing this letter without the harsh consequences that followed.”

      Huh? Can you help me?

      • Jan, the links I am providing are to my blog – The Great Montana Conspiracy. There is some discourse in presenting the documents. The first link talks about what started the conflict with the city and Garner – the first demand letter. Towards the bottom of the blog entry is a discolored text that reads:

        071803 Letter To City of Kalispell

        This is actually a hyperlink to the document. As much as I have tried to insert the actual visual image into my blogs, this is the best I have managed, because the documents are saved in PDF (not JPG, since they are too large in that format).

        The same thing is true in the second link – at the bottom is discolored text that reads:

        111803 Complaint

        Again, hyperlink to the actual complaint filed. I originally drafted the complaint for Justice Court, but they sent me upstairs to file it in District Court and the heading was never changed…

        • Drunks for Denny | May 9, 2014 8:53 AM at 8:53 AM |

          “just as the Fort Sumter incursion that started the War Between the States (aka, the US Civil War) was preluded by years of abuse against the southern states”

          Being a racist does not promote your case.

          • How does citing Civil War history make me a racist? Wow – that’s reaching… The malicious prosecution and false conviction are losing ground, so now you’re going to use my reference to the War Between the States as in inference that I am racist? Just… wow…

            For the record, I am not racist by any stretch of the imagination.

            • DOH! You are completely out of touch. It is misrepresenting history that makes you a racist.

              • First, even if you assumed I was misrepresenting history, that does not make me a racist – a racist is someone who believes that one race is superior to another, or demonstrates conduct or behavior that perpetuates this belief. Nothing in saying that the Fort Sumter conflict that stands as the start of the Civil War was preceded by years of abuse against the southern states by the northern ones in any manner, shape or form denounces any specific race, one way or the other.

                But this being stated, slavery was only one of the problems that existed between the northern and southern states prior to the War Between the States – existing all the way back to the 1830s. The first and foremost reasons for cessation was the tariffs imposed upon southern agricultural goods by northern states. Keep in mind: there were only seven southern states, and over twice that many northern ones, plus the registered voter population of the South was marginal compared to the north (the major work force were slaves, after all) – but this gave the South literally no true voice in legislation in Congress, so when laws unfavorable to the South were passed, there was no recourse for the southern states. In fact, the principle call to arms of the southern states was the reaffirmation of the Revolutionary War’s motto of “taxation without representation”. This is actual history – read some history books, and you will see this is all true.

                In saying this, I am in *no* way endorsing slavery – I believe the institution of slavery is deplorable, and I believe it was properly abolished. But this being said, it *was* legal in the 1860s, and as law, there was no cause for war to settle it. The Congress could have passed a law to abolish slavery nationally before the war, but did not. Winston Churchill once said that the American Civil War was the most inevitable conflict in history – the South could not survive with the impositions placed upon them by the North.

                I believe that – in time – slavery would have been abolished on its own. By the 1860s, many abolitionists were rising to prominence in government, and if they had had their way, they would have eventually passed legislation to outlaw it. Which, most likely, would have led to a genuine war over slavery. If the states had not gone to war over taxation, they would have eventually come to blows on slavery, I believe. But it was *not* the reason for the war that *was* fought.

                The only reason we historically reference this as the Civil War was because Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 in order to keep England out of the war. The South did not have the ability to produce weapons, and England – who had a vested interest in cheap agriculture from the South – was prepared to provide aid to the South. But England had been openly opposed to slavery internationally for decades, and Lincoln – in a brilliant political move – shifted the international perception of the war onto slavery in order to embarrass England and keep them out of the war.

                Again, this is history. It is not slanted toward one race or another, and my referencing it does not make me a racist. You are getting really desperate if you are trying to twist it that way – and you are also showing how ignorant you really are…

              • I think this Ron Glick fella has a real future as a Republican state auditor candidate.

                • I am sure there is some kind of inside joke here, but I have no clue what it is. I have no desire to run for any political office, and my felony conviction precludes me from holding any elected position. Also, I am not a Republican – I am an Independent, in that I belong to no political party. I would still be speaking out against Garner, even if he were running as a Democrat.

                  One of the great things about suggesting a protest vote against Garner as I do in my video is that I do not need to worry about somehow getting elected…

                • You’re right, it was kind of a joke. I was comparing you to Derek Skees. He is kind of an oddball like you. Your writings here remind me of his rants. I just read the police report on your blog. You are a very creepy guy. You might want to consider pulling that off there, even though you tried to redact the dob’s and SS#s it doesn’t really work very well. Not to mention the name of the victim is there, maybe that’s public info at this point but still seems creepy.

                  • Consider the source – I did not write the reports, I am only posting them. And I have already said that the police department had a predisposition against me because of my advocacy with kids against them. There is a lot missing from these reports, honestly – interviews and contacts that somehow were never recorded. But the record is the record, and I am making no effort to change it.

                    I have said from the beginning that this started with false allegations made by my girlfriend’s parents who elicited cooperation from the alleged victim. The story of the alleged victim was apparently one of a handful that were made – the grandparents also alleged I molested both a previous girlfriend and the daughter(s) of one of my girlfriend’s friends – both of which proved to be untrue, as both parents attested there was never such an incident. For whatever reason, the details of these allegations are barely referenced, other than Chantel Beasley’s (girlfriend’s friend) interview where she denied the allegation – the fact that the grandparents were the ones who originally made this allegation is altogether missing, and without understanding why Chantel was interviewed in the first place, it looks like just a random person was brought in and asked questions.

                    Another aspect out of context is the reason for the differences in the alleged victim’s statements – which had nothing to do with me. Her story fell apart very quickly when she was interviewed by a professional counselor, which is why she changed her original story by the next interview – because the counselor, Edith Paxman, found that she had no trauma, related details without any emotional connection, used words she did not understand, noted large gaps in the story, and that there was no actual ending to the alleged incident, ie, the alleged victim claimed it happened, but not that it ever stopped. When asked for these details, Edith was able to trip her up on specifics, because she was not prepared for answers, and ultimately when cornered on her inconsistencies, changed her previous detail that I was awake.

                    Incidentally, it is upon that statement – that I could have been asleep – that a criminal prosecution could not proceed. Even if you take for a moment that the incident allegedly occurred (which I still do not believe it ever did because of other inconsistencies in her story) if I were asleep, that removes intent from the equation. Since the alleged victim was not willing to say I did this consciously, this cleared me of wrongdoing.

                    Again – I am not saying I was asleep. I have insisted from almost the very beginning that I don’t believe that the event happened at all. I believe she was coached by her grandparents, just as my girlfriend believed. But it is what the alleged victim *said*.

                    Incidentally, if you read the report and actually look to the original allegation, a reasonable man would see there is a glaring problem – it is physically impossible for the human arm to move up and down if it is lain on, as the alleged victim claims – it can only move at a 45 degree angle. In order to touch both breasts, the arm has to be able to move straight up and down, and this was physically impossible in the scenario originally presented by the alleged victim.

                    I regret that the reports have the alleged victim’s name, but it is as you say – a search of the Internet will find this information on pages I have absolutely no control over. Also remember: I did not originally want to post these records online – I did so because I was constantly attacked with the premise that I had no proof that the investigations were closed, that is just my say-so. Well, you can’t have it both ways – either accept my “word” and come inspect the actual records on your own, or I produce them online to confirm the truth of what I say… Continue to attack my credibility, and I will continue to produce records that reinforce it.

  3. surelyyoujest11 | May 9, 2014 10:00 AM at 10:00 AM |

    Mr. Glick, Did your case go to trial or did you take a plea?

    • I took it to trial. Please read my earlier summaries, and those on my blog so I am not redundantly going over the same details and eating up screen space here. Thanks. :)

      • I think that response was a bit harsh – this is not the thread where I discussed my trial. My bad, and I apologize.

        In answer to your question, I took my case to trial because I refused to confess to a crime I did not commit. This is also why I served the full five years of my prison sentence, because the parole board would not release me unless I “took responsibility” for the crime. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and that position has never wavered.

        The trial however consisted of me being paraded in front of a jury in jail clothes and restraints, while my so-called public defenders, Ed Falla and David Stufft, actually defended the prosecutors, refused to challenge the fact that the alleged victim’s stories had changed repeatedly over time as flaws were discovered in her stories, and would do nothing to discredit the State’s manufactured witness, Frank Allen, who was actually a client of Falla’s – and who also ended up dead ten days after my trial.

        I have long suspected the reason for Allen’s death is he wanted to use the fact that he had lied as a bartering chip to get a free pass on his own pending sentencing (you would have to know how Allen thought and manipulated people – I did spend several months in a cell with him), and he was killed because he would not remain silent if he did not get what he wanted. This last part is admittedly speculation, but it fits both the timeframe and what I know of how Allen would try to use information to barter for his own advantage. I had specifically witnessed him do similar things with other inmates, so to believe he tried doing this with the authorities is not a departure from his standard behavior.

  4. In my experience, if someone can’t explain what their case was about and whether it had any merits, and the outcome in 1 or 2 sentences then there’s a problem and it probably involves crack-pottery and conspiracies.

    • Two sentences? After a false allegation was investigated and I was cleared, Frank Garner not only blocked production of records, but also sent a myriad of officials – from his department and elsewhere – to harass my business in downtown Kalispell. When I filed suit, he had my step daughters abducted and spearheaded an effort that eventually led to my being arrested and convicted of the very offense of which I had already been cleared through threats, manipulation and outright deprivation of civil liberties.

      Sounds like you really just want an excuse not to listen, or to find an alternative way to deflect from the issues.

  5. surelyyoujest11 | May 9, 2014 10:31 AM at 10:31 AM |

    In reading your blog I have spotted so many factual errors that I have had to stop reading. You clearly don’t understand the law nor how copies of lawful orders (e.g. Lympus’ order to file) are disseminated to the parties. In addition, your statement that ” By law, these are the only lawful hours of court operations” is patently false. See Rule 77(a) which states: Rule 77. Conducting Business; Clerk’s Authority; Notice of an Order or Judgment.
    (a) When Court Is Open. Every district court is considered always open for filing any paper, issuing and returning process, making a motion, or entering an order.

    Putting that aside however, I am struck by the fact that we are to believe that a jury of your peers erred in convicting you after hearing the evidence. I’m not willing to entertain that thought as no successful appeal was undertaken or successful.

    Sorry sir, you aren’t helping yourself here.

  6. surelyyoujest11 | May 9, 2014 10:35 AM at 10:35 AM |

    Lastly, you keep referencing the “fact” that you were previously cleared of any wrongdoing. This would also be false unless you were charged and acquitted in which case double jeopardy would have come into play. Clearly this did not happen and to suggest that because charges were not filed earlier that you were cleared is ludicrous.

    • First, you need to quote the laws in force during this period, not as they were revised to current. Though the content of the law you cite has not been drastically changed, you should still not be citing an irrelevant code.

      This being said, the law you cite is intended to be an allowance for seeking emergency orders from a district court, such as a search warrant or emergency protective order. It is not designed for initiating a claim or prosecution, which is actually covered by Rule 5(e), which states:

      “The filing of papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk.”

      The clerk only receives documents when a clerk is present in the court, which is during posted hours. If you look at the scanned documents, you will see there is no receiving signature from the clerk – only the time-date stamp. This indicates that these documents were not received by the clerk, only filed in the court. Further, the secondary exclusion to this provision requires a judicial signature, which is also absent.

      I have personally read caselaw which discusses that a court of law is subject to public scrutiny, and therefore cannot operate during clandestine hours. This is an example of trying to use a code that is not applicable (Rule 77) to bypass the necessity of law (Rule 5(e)). No private party can walk in and file a document with the court clerk outside of their posted hours, simply because the clerk’s office is not staffed 24 hours a day.

      When you say I do not understand the law, clearly you are just trying to find a legal way to bypass the same issues that everyone else has tried to do by attacking my integrity. You still are dodging the issue of addressing the actual facts I have presented – that all of this was initiated by Frank Garner to stop a lawsuit filed against him. Even if you were to take the devil’s advocate position that my interpretation of law is faulty, you are still just trying to avoid discussing the actual issue at hand: whether Frank Garner abused his office by collaborating with other corrupt officials to stop a lawsuit brought against him and his department for malfeasance.

      Once again, stop attacking me and look to the issues being raised, not trying to hide behind some backdoor legal argument to somehow bolster your case – you’re still not talking about the issues.

      • Also, when considering the jury, they have to first be allowed to know the facts before they can be seen as arbitrators of fact. I have said all along that I was paraded in front of a kangaroo court, because I was forced to be displayed for the jury in jail clothes and in shackles, that they were never given all the facts of the case because both my counsel and the prosecutors kept this from them, and that the state’s manufactured witness was created expressly to present to the jury that I had confessed to the alleged crime. This is not an arbitration of fact – it is a perversion of the system set up to give me the pretense of a trial. I was even told by Katherine Curtis (presiding judge) that if I opened my mouth during trial, that I would be removed from the courtroom and the trial would proceed without me, so I had to sit back and watch helplessly as everyone played out a scheme designed to make sure that the authorities’ own culpability was never brought into question before the jury.

      • surelyyoujest11 | May 12, 2014 9:50 AM at 9:50 AM |

        I repeat for the record. You know not what you are talking about when it comes to the laws governing the office of the Clerk of Court or how documents are filed/processed/etc..
        Further, I know Peg Allison, who you sued, and she is as honest as the day is long.
        You sir, again, are not helping yourself here and quite honestly are coming across as a lunatic.

        • I know full well how the laws are supposed to work – you cannot dispute what the actual law says. How things are *done* on the other hand is an entirely different affair – that’s the Good Ol’ Boys Gestapo at work – do things the way you want to do them because you can and no one ever stops you. You can’t even come back with any record this time – you just call me insane.

          Pretty clear at this point that you are part of the system, not just a random commenter. This comment is the kind of rhetoric Ed Falla – my so-called public defender – said to me when I quoted him the law and he could not refute it. He told me, “I don’t care what the law says. I practice law in Kalispell, and this is how it’s done here.”

          As for Peg being honest – truly? Is this why her long-time employee April Coen just resigned, because she loved how honest and fair Peg Allison was? How about you reference the following:

          This is actual documented proof of Peg Allison tampering with official records of the court. This post even has a scanned letter from Peg Allison herself where she admits to keeping records out of the court file for two months! Keep in mind, the May 19th letter she references was accompanied by motions to amend the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings – documents shown on the Flathead Docket as Items 6.100 through 6.300 as not being entered into the docket until July 29 – though they are noted as being received on May 19 – and then only in response to an application for supervisory control.

          Sure this is honest… No wait, doesn’t honesty require people do things… oh, I don’t know… honestly?

          • One more thing – it is a felony under Montana law to tamper with official records (see MCA Section 45-7-208), punishable by up to ten years in prison per offense. Peg Allison’s own letter ascribes to tampering with official records by keeping three separate filings *on her desk* and out of the court file for over two months.

          • surelyyoujest11 | May 12, 2014 12:12 PM at 12:12 PM |

            I’m not gonna continue arguing with someone who has no real clue how a Clerk of Court office works and who obviously doesn’t know how to read actual statute. The Clerk is on duty 24/7 by statute. To suggest that “The clerk only receives documents when a clerk is present in the court, which is during posted hours.” is insanely incorrect and I just use this as one example of many where you have no idea what you are talking about.
            I would suggest you contact a real attorney and have he/she explain why you are incredibly full of it and why your various lawsuits end up going nowhere. Not unlike where your candidacy is going I would bet.

            • My candidacy? I am not running for anything, nor can I. Are you trying top allude in some off-beat way that I have some kind of political aspirations?

              For the record, I have talked with attorneys. Several. All of which are in other counties, of course, and each one refers me to Rule 5(e). Consistently. The ones who I have talked to in this county also say something consistently: that’s just how they do it here.

              The statute reads as it reads – all documents must be filed *with* the clerk, and you cannot file something with someone who is not present.

            • One other point here: even if what you say is true, that any official can go into the court and file something at any hour of the day or night without the clerk present, how do you validate the authority of the *judge* – who was clearly not present since he did not actually sign the order – being filed at 4:44am?

              Keep in mind, I am not disputing that the clerk could not walk in at 4:33am and file something if she so chose – all I have said is that the hour demonstrates that she was not there, because it was not during her posted hours. But there is also no clerk signature on the filed document, which proves that she was not present. The only signature on any of these documents is Lori Adams’, and she was not a clerk of the court – she was a deputy assistant county attorney.

              But like I said – even if you set aside the idea that Rule 5(e) only allows for filing with the clerk or by the judge himself (assistant deputy county attorney is neither) – how do you validate the so-called authority of a stamp for the judge’s name at 4:44am? Even if you argue that Lori Adams somehow had authority to file something in the court without the clerk, are you also saying she could grant an order in the judge’s name, as well?

    • I was cleared of wrongdoing by the police department and Child and Family services. Both investigations were closed in September, 2003. No new evidence was ever produced prior to Frank Garner reopening them on October 28, 2003. I never said that my double jeopardy rights were violated in this way – only that I was investigated and cleared prior to Frank Garner’s attack on me.

  7. No offense, Ron, but you are clearly incorrect on two points here.
    1) You were never “cleared” of anything, regardless of whether any investigation turned up evidence or an investigation was closed. The only way you could be “cleared” is if you were declared not guilty in a court of law. That’s the blind edge of our first principle of justice, that you are innocent until proven guilty, which you were in court. That,of course, does not mean that you were not wrong-fully convicted, but it is simply wrong headed to found that argument on how you were “cleared” when you never were.
    2) As much as you desire the topic of this post to be different, “the actual issue at hand” is not “whether Frank Garner abused his office by collaborating with other corrupt officials to stop a lawsuit brought against him and his department for malfeasance.” The actual issue at hand is the primary election choice between Garner and Skees. Everything Cowgirl wrote is factual. You, a convicted sex offender, are attempting to influence the election by accusing Garner of corruption. In short, it isn’t about *you*. No reader here owes it to you or the candidates to research your claims or believe your accusation of “criminal conduct”. This election will not be your default retrial, nor will Garner’s defeat vindicate or exonerate you. Your conspiracy theories may influence the votes of some; others will simply laugh at them as has happened here. Ultimately speaking, Garner remains innocent until proven guilty just as you were. NO attempt to get him convicted on a blog, or in the court of public opinion will change that fact, at all.

    You remember back in the Presidential election of 2008, when some druggie cab-driver accused Obama of smoking crack and homosexual acts? Yeah, that’s about what you are reading like here. The point you miss is that this post isn’t making fun of you as a sex-offender; it’s making fun of your attempt to be important in influencing what people want for their representation, as a convicted sex offender, just so that you can feel more important. It’s making fun of Skees for using such a weak tool just to win an election.

    • Now you seek to redirect this to say that I have some kind of secret motivation behind this? That I am somehow seeking a “new trial”? At what point have I *ever* called for that in any of my comments or discourse? You are trying to put words in my mouth here, just as Mt Cowgirl is trying to convince her readers that there is some kind of secret collusion between myself and Tea Party Republicans that does not exist.

      At no point have I said that this is about my conviction or trying to get a “retrial”. It’s about the fact that Frank Garner used his political power to bypass the constitutional laws of this country – the First Amendment, in fact – which says anyone can bring grievance against government without fear of molestation. Frank Garner’s credibility is the issue – regardless of how Mt Girl spins it, she is attempting to use the fact that I am – today – a convicted sex offender to deflect from the fact that – then – Garner abused his office to retaliate for me exercising my First Amendment rights. Mt. Cowgirl, whether you like it or not, is responding specifically to a video I made with one point – that Frank Garner has committed malfeasance in office and should not be permitted to do so again. She can paint the background of her article however she likes, but that is the issue – not whether I am a sex offender or whether the Tea Party Republicans have somehow elected me as a mascot (which I assure you, they have not – I posted this video on my own, not because of any incentive offered by their faction).

      Now, this being said – if someone came to me and offered to assist in my ongoing legal struggles (as I continue to this day to seek to overturn this false conviction), would I turn them away? Of course not. But I have not asked for this, I have not solicited it, and I have not been offered it. My sole effort here is to share my experiences, as people like you are trying so desperately to keep Garner’s bad conduct out of the general public’s perception.

      Also, sorry, but the term “cleared” is not synonymous with “not guilty in a court of law”. “Cleared” means that after investigation, the complaint was determined to have no merit. I was cleared of wrongdoing by two independent agencies, and the investigations were closed. Period. Two agencies independently made the same conclusion and closed their investigations. They were only re-opened because Garner had them re-opened. And he only did so as retaliation against me for asking for the records of his department, as provided by Montana law. And then when his actions resulted in a lawsuit, he used his influence to have my girlfriend’s daughters abducted, and ultimately to have me arrested and convicted as a sex offender.

      None of this requires a not guilty verdict in court. Independent investigations are conducted all the time, and clear people of wrongdoing without a criminal case. A court of law is not the sole arbitrator of whether a crime was committed – it is a more final course, but it is not the only course. You accuse me of making no sense – then rattle off about how the only way to be cleared of wrongdoing is through a court of law? Please…

      And to say that everything Mt Cowgirl says is true? Really? So the concept that I am somehow the spokesman for the Tea Party is true? That I was set up by Garner’s opposition to do all of this? Please. I have no political affiliation. In fact, I am an independent voter – I don’t play party politics. I am only trying to influence this election in as far as making sure Garner is not permitted to continue his abuse from a new position of power. That Ronalee Skees gains advantage by my speaking out against Garner is not in any way my intention. In fact, if Garner loses this primary – as he should – my involvement will most likely be done. I cannot foresee a reason to be involved in this election any further – save as a voter. And I have made no actual determination as yet of whether I wish to vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in the November election at this point – I am only interested in keeping Frank Garner out of office, because I have personal experience with how detrimental his brand of public service is.

      This is not to say that come November, I won’t vote for Ronalee. I could very well do so, if when I examine the final candidates I feel she is the best candidate. My point is, I am interested in the individuals running, not the parties – and quite frankly (no pun intended), Ronalee has been the only candidate to treat me with even the barest amount of dignity. So what does that say for your side of the argument? That I am not entitled to dignity because of the state Garner has left me in?

      • You are still spectacularly missing my point, Ron. No one has mistaken your motives or agenda, and no one has assumed they were ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’. If one accepts ‘the truth’ as you see it, then you are simply trying to protect voters from an evil man. Fine. You can’t deny that smacks of revenge, whether righteous or not. Where you go too far is in berating and condescending to people if they question your version of ‘the truth’. You are forgetting the conditional clause, there. One has to accept that you are telling the truth before they can understand that you attempting to protect anybody.

        The only reasons one has to accept your version of ‘the truth’ is a time stamp and your say-so concerning the corruption of the entirety of the justice system in Flathead county. Reasons one would have *not* to accept your version of the truth is the judgment of 12 of your peers. It should be obvious to you which judgment most will come to. Rather than accept that, you spread your accusations to everyone who makes the obvious choice. We are deflecting, we are redirecting, we “need” to do X,Y and Z to prove you wrong. No, Ron. No one here “needs” to do anything. No one is obligated to believe you, or even listen to you. Whether for good or ill, a court of law is the final arbiter of one’s innocence or guilt. Zimmerman walked away and you didn’t and you want revenge. See, nothing secret in that.

        I never accused you of making no sense. I simply pointed out that you weren’t convincing anyone of what you thought you should. I’m not confused, MT Cowgirl isn’t confused, the readers here aren’t confused. The only one who really seems confused about this situation is you.

        • So your strategy is that by minimizing and deflecting away from what I am actually saying, that will make what you say more credible?

          I am going to ignore the bulk of what you say, because it’s just inflammatory and serves no purpose than to empower you. I am not going to play a liar’s game with you – I know the truth, and you don’t. But if you’re so convinced I am wrong, why have you never asked to see the records I have not presented?

          Saying this, I will correct one glaring misrepresentation you made – and hope people will finally see from this misrepresentation that you are the one who lacks credibility: You state that I expect people to believe me based only on a date stamp and because I say so. Firstly, you greatly minimize the significance of the date stamp – because, as I previously demonstrated, it was not filed with the clerk of court as required by Rule 5(e) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. The date stamp – coupled with the lack of a judicial signature or clerk’s signature on the same documents – indicates that someone (most likely Lori Adams, since hers is the only actual signature to appear) entered the clerk’s office outside standard hours – when no clerk was actually present – and filed the documents, waited eleven minutes to file documents with a judicial stamp on them. That’s quite a bit more important than *just* a time stamp.

          And if you are genuinely following this thread, you know I have provided more than just one document with a date stamp. I have provided the original demand letter against the city, the original lawsuit, the information (ie, charging document), the order granting leave to file the information (ie, order to proceed with prosecution) and the death record of Frank Raymond Allen. I have also stated that I have many more records which I have not scanned and placed online (mostly due to identifying information on them such as dates of birth and SS #s), but can provide upon request. So there is a *lot* more than *just* one loan date stamp.

          BTW, I learned today that the Eleventh District Court only within the last couple of months tightened up security – but before then, any judicial or county official had an access key to the clerk’s office to enter it at any time. Remember, even though the court itself is considered open at any time (Rule 77), it requires a clerk present to actually file anything (Rule 5(e)). So though judicial and county attorney officials may have had justifiable reason to enter the court clerk’s office at any time (to retrieve records, for instance), these did not include filing documents at 4:33am and 4:44am, respectively.

          I have never asked anyone to take just my word. I have offered proof. It just requires people to not be dissuaded from viewing it.

          “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 Heinlein, “If This Goes On”, 1940

          • And by the way, all of the proof I have offered is all information the jury never saw because they were not allowed to. Between Ed Falla (my so-called defense attorney) and the County Attorney – not to mention Judge Katherine Curtis’ threat that if I spoke up, I would be removed from the court room and the trial would proceed without me – the jury was kept from knowing any of this.

  8. Also, Ron, you can’t sue the police chief for “RICO” violations.

    Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961.

    As currently amended it includes:

    Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);

    Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);

    Embezzlement of union funds;

    Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;

    Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;

    Criminal copyright infringement;

    Money laundering and related offenses;

    Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);

    Acts of terrorism.

    • I did not sue Frank Garner under RICO. Please read the original suit – I sued him in the Eleventh District Court of Montana (though the header says Justice Court, as this was where I originally intended to file it, but was sent upstairs to attach it to the already existing suit initiated by the production request (and the clerk would not let me change the header) filed on October 30, 2003 (please refer to the original document posted on my blog). Later, when I sought to move this case to federal court, I filed it under 42 USC Section 1983, not RICO.

      This being said, the elements I have set forth constitute fraud, extortion, and racketeering (which by itself is defined by 18 USC Section 1952 as relevant to this issue as committing any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity), so that at the very least, if I *had* filed under RICO, it would have been proper. Garner broke the law. Plain and simple, he abused his office to perpetuate the abduction of children in order to advance a false charge against me, committing fraud in general an upon the court.

      But as I did not file in federal court, this is a moot issue.

  9. openyoureyesmt | May 10, 2014 6:15 PM at 6:15 PM |

    look whether you all want to believe it or not the court is corrupt and the police are just fall guys for them !
    I know personally what goes on in the courts and the police and sheriff departments, I asked a under sheriff once to give me a good sheriff to work with and he looked me in the eye and said i do not trust one sheriff in this department.
    and I myself placed a law suite against a corrupt judge . only to have the clerk of court go into my file and remove 8 documents and send them back to me with rejected stamped on them , oh and in case your wondering they were very important documents in the case against the judge. the clerk according to the police committed 8 felony and 8 mister meaner, but the county attorney told the detective to not investigate it.
    just the fact i went to two newspapers to run an add to ask if any one else has bean wronged by elected officials, the news papers refused to run my adds ??
    wake up !

  10. Cowgirl reader | May 10, 2014 6:17 PM at 6:17 PM |

    This is nauseating. Mr. Glick was convicted by a jury of his peers. His defense was that he was possibly asleep at the time of the offense (sleep groping?). He has tried to sue 25 people plus 50 unknown John Does, appealed his conviction on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and struck out on every count.
    Please do not drive up the views on his pathetic conspiracy blog.
    I am sickened that this smear campaign has gotten any attention.

    • Wonderful how you want the case to be ignored. I have to applaud you, at least – you did not hide behind some other excuse. You just don’t want the case looked into.

      Ask yourself this though: if you are wrong in court, how do you correct that wrong, as the collaborating parties covering up at each step of the cover-up expands? You are more than willing to define how many I have supposedly sued, but why not discuss the *dates* of when those suits happened? Each and every one of them started after the issues that started in 2003. There was one suit that preceded Mr. Garner’s – and that was still connected to the same issues. Every single suit and defense has stemmed from the corruption that has been unearthed by this initial conflict. I have not spent my adult life suing people as you seem to insinuate – I started suing when no other option presented itself in 2003, and I am continuing to fight through the legal system, as it is the only legal remedy I have.

      I say again – how can a jury be seen as making an informed verdict if they are not allowed to see all the facts? Why do people like yourself continue to insist that the jury must have had some kind of clairvoyance to know all the facts that were not presented?

      Again, I ask you: if this happened to you, if you were falsely accused, convicted and persecuted, when would you stop fighting? Especially knowing that the real criminals are sitting back and profiting off their crimes at your expense?

      I did not issue my statement to defend myself – I issued it to make people aware of Frank Garner’s criminal misconduct in his office as police chief. It is everyone else – like yourself – who is bringing up the so-called legitimacy of how I was convicted.

      • if you were falsely accused, convicted and persecuted, when would you stop fighting? Especially knowing that the real criminals are sitting back and profiting off their crimes at your expense?

        So clearly, in your mind, this topic really *is* all about you. Please see my comment below as to how wrong-headed that is on your part.

        • No, Rob. I am responding to attacks against me and my efforts to use the court systems. I did not raise the issue – I am only responding to the attacks of others. I did not post my original statement to discuss what efforts I have been using to overturn my conviction, or to hold corrupt officials accountable. That has been brought out by others, and I am responding in kind.

          Watch my video again – where in there do I make this statement? No, I am responding to issues raised by others designed to discredit me. And now you would seek to say it is “all about” me? Wow, let’s try to twist it some more… Like the Huey Lewis song says, “Tell me a little lie to remember you by. Just a little one, to believe in…”

  11. openyoureyesmt | May 10, 2014 6:24 PM at 6:24 PM |

    Also if you research Montana’s false sexual molestation charges are way higher than most other states ,its somewhere around 3 in every 300 thousand for most states and 300 to every 300 thousand in Montana ,its used as a tool to shut people up or to turn the judges against innocent people. one lady told me an Attorney in Whitefish told her if she wanted to get everything in her divorce then she had better do as he said and make sexual molestations against her husband.
    wake up !!

  12. openyoureyesmt | May 10, 2014 6:34 PM at 6:34 PM |

    Cowgirl reader
    it is not about MR Glick its about the corruption in the system,
    tell me if you hold a Rico action against a group of officials and include the federal judge in that group how the heck can that judge be the judge on that case!
    Don,t you see it if you sue a judge then why would he not stand aside and let another judge take the case !
    i just recently had such a thing happen and a state attorney told me that it should never happen !
    in the Flathead county there is no over site on any elected people,they just do as they please and cover up for each other !
    judges know its going on but every one is bullied into not fixing it !
    you the people can only fix it by not voting in people like Frank Garner,how have past hidden agendas.

    • Openyoureyesmt, permit me to clarify something in your post:

      A few years ago, I filed a RICO and Section 1983 suit, naming, amongst others, Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy, for refusing to permit actions against state authorities to be pursued by indigent individuals in Montana. Judge Molloy subsequently removed himself from the suit, and proceeded to preside over the case at trial. This case is presently pending on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.

      What you are attempting to relate, I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) is that corruption in Montana extends to all levels, even as high as the federal courts.

  13. As an incidental follow-up, since this thread has insisted on diverting to the subject of whether my conviction for child molestation was valid because a jury found me guilty, I recommend you read this link:

    This is an NBC News report that details how over 2000 (yes, two THOUSAND) false convictions have been overturned by people in the last 23 years. With this is light, how is it you can honestly be so convinced that I committed a crime based solely on whether a jury convicted me or not?

    The courts are not infallible – even in a perfect situation. Even when all parties (except the accused, of course) believe that a person is guilty of a sex crime, mistakes happen and juries (often run by prejudice rather than facts) make mistakes and condemn innocent people.

    Using the statistics presented in this article, there is a false conviction every four days in this country.

    Every. Four. Days.

    Of especial interest is this quote:

    “…[R]esearchers became aware of more than 1,100 other cases in which convictions were overturned due to 13 separate police corruption scandals…”

    Wow, deja vu… Police and government corruption happens. And it happens here.

    • Oh Ron. ~facepalm~ Still you miss the point. No one here is arguing or frankly cares much if you were rightly or wrongly convicted. You’ve made certain of that. The point is you were convicted, and are now attempting to influence an election, the weight of your influence based on the predicate that the person influenced already accepts that you were wrongly convicted. If you ever understand that, and I doubt you will, you will actually understand that your caterwaul here is being counter-productive to your desires. That’s the only strategy behind my comments, at all.

      • That has never been the position you have made previously, but I do not disagree with one point you make: I am convicted. But you are wrong about whether the issue of whether I was falsely convicted or not affects this issue. As much as I did not want this to become the predominate issue, the bulk of attacks here – even your own – deal with one principle: I was convicted and could only have been so if I were guilty, and upon that principle, anything I say should be discounted.

        I have said before that I did not make my statement to try to influence anything other than to share my own information about personal experiences with Frank Garner. As much as I have been betrayed by the United States and Montana governments as a whole – both through action and inaction – I still believe people have the right to make informed decisions. I could not in good conscience remain silent and let others make their vote without being informed on these issues.

        You insist that whether I was wrongly convicted or not is not an issue. But you could not be more wrong – since the premise of whether I – as Mt Cowgirl implies – should be held “accountable”. The question then rightly becomes what am I specifically being held accountable for? Before you can even move forward upon the pretense that I be held accountable as a sex offender, you must first determine whether I committed a crime to be held account *for*. Therefore, this all boils down to whether I was or was not wrongly convicted – did I commit a sex offense or was I set up by Garner to stop a lawsuit?

        I have pulled out documents that I plan to scan and post to my blog tonight which I have previously not released because of identifying information (ie, SS#s, DOBs, etc). I will be making photocopies and mark out the personal identifying information that will leave these documents not-so-vulnerable for identity thieves, but will still convey the relevant details – including a signed affidavit by one of the people attempting to serve Frank Garner and the admissions forms for my girlfriend’s daughters that clearly indicate that there was no good cause to remove them from the home in November, 2003. Hopefully, these two will get things back on track to the issue that should be the focus of this thread – whether actions by Frank Garner were proper or taken in excess of his lawful authority.

        For anyone needing a link to the blog, please go here:

        • For anyone waiting on my post, the additional documents are now posted on my blog ( They include the original police reports; the letter from CFS acknowledging that the claim against me was unsubstantiated; an affidavit from one of the process servers who attests therein that Frank Garner obstructed service to himself and others through threats; and the two referral forms from CFS documenting my girlfriend’s daughters being placed outside the home without good cause.

          Again, I have a wealth of more evidence that can be reviewed, but I hope these records will once again shift this topic back where it belongs – to the criminal misconduct of Frank Garner while he was serving as police chief in Kalispell.

  14. From the Daily Inter Lake: July 12, 2005

    Sex-assault trial begins

    CHERY SABOL The Daily Inter Lake | Updated 4 weeks ago

    The jury trial of a man accused of sexually assaulting a girl opened in fits and

    starts Monday in Flathead District Court.

    The jury trial of a man accused of sexually assaulting a girl opened in fits and starts Monday in Flathead District Court.

    Ron Glick, 36, is charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl at the Main Street business, Arcadia, that he owned in Kalispell in summer 2003.

    According to his accuser, he touched her inappropriately. Children under 14 are presumed incapable of giving consent to sexual contact and anyone three years or more older than the alleged victim may be charged with felony sexual assault for such contact.

    Glick has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the city of Kalispell and some individuals alleging defamation as a result of the investigation.

    Prosecuting Deputy County Attorney Tim Wenz laid out the state’s case against Glick in opening arguments Monday afternoon.

    He said Glick and the girl, who knew him, were watching cartoons as they lay on a couch in the back of the store. Glick put his hands inside her shirt and down her pants and wouldn’t stop when she told him to, Wenz told the jury.

    The girl told her grandparents, who reported the incident to the police. Her mother, Wenz said, did not believe her. On other occasions, Glick stroked the girl’s leg and watched her undress, he said.

    The girl was placed in foster care, where she remains. She also has received treatment at Pathways Treatment Center, Wenz said.

    Defense attorney Ed Falla told the jury that the girl has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder – not

    because of anything Glick did, but because of years of abuse by her former stepfather.

    He pointed out that in a statement given to police, the girl said she didn’t know if Glick was awake and knew what he was doing at the time of the assault. He can only be convicted if he knowingly assaulted the girl.

    After the girl made that statement in July 2003, a policeman said no further action would be taken in the case, Falla said. An investigation by the state Department of Public Health and Human Services also concluded that “no further action was warranted,” he said.

    In October 2003, Glick filed a $3 million lawsuit against the girl’s grandparents, the police department and others, Falla said.

    After that, police again interviewed the girl and the county attorney’s office ultimately filed the felony charges against Glick, Falla said, implying that it was in retribution for the lawsuit.

    In a hearing outside the jury’s presence, Deputy County Attorney Lori Adams said the lawsuit is irrelevant.

    “This is what Mr. Glick does,” she said. Glick also has filed professional complaints against her and his own attorney and investigator, Adams said.

    The jury won’t be privy to some of the information raised Monday.

    District Judge Kitty Curtis ruled that other alleged acts of misconduct, such as watching the girl undress, will not be admissible, even though Wenz alluded to them in his comments to the jury.

    Glick also was charged with witness tampering for allegedly coercing the girl into signing a statement saying he was innocent. That charge was also filed because of “someone’s agenda to get at my client because he sued them,” Falla said. It was recently dropped.

    Glick was arrested in Goldendale, Wash., where he moved after the alleged incident.

    His lawsuit against the city remains active. He alleges witness tampering, slander, defamation of character, harassment and emotional harm.

    Defendants include the city, the police department, the city attorney’s office, Police Chief Frank Garner, officers Myron Wilson and Doug Overman, Mayor Pam Kennedy, former City Manager Chris Kukulski, assistant City Attorney Rich Hickle and other unnamed people.

    Glick asserts that police tampered with witnesses by telling the alleged victim, her mother and others that he has a prior record for child molestation, which Glick denies. For that, he wants $1.25 million.

    Glick says the incident in which he claims the witness tampering occurred also slandered and defamed him. For that, the city should pay him $1 million, he said.

    Among his other monetary claims is $500,000 for emotional distress.

    Testimony progressed slowly Monday, with Curtis taking breaks to hear several matters outside the jury’s presence.

    The sole witness Monday was the girl, who said her mother told her to say Glick was possibly asleep during the assault.

    The girl, now 15, said she would like to be reunited with her family.

    Reporter Chery Sabol may be reached at 758-4441 or by e-mail at

    • How does posting an original news article from my trial in 2005 aid this debate? All it does is set forth two things: the bias of the media (note the inflammatory, slanted language repeatedly used when discussing me) and the limited information the jury saw. Take note – though the lawsuit is referenced, at no point does the article mention that evidence of Garner’s or any other official’s specific misconduct is provided to the jury.

      Also, though the article claims the suit was still active – it was only active on the surface, since I was in jail and provided no access to the clerk to proceed with the suit. In effect, it was just sitting and collecting dust, as the court would never respond to anything I sent regarding the suit.

  15. Well for me it explains what your lawsuit was about when you were unable to do so, after bein asked repeatedly, but I guess you didn’t want to explain, you just wanted to cast vague aspersions on Garner.

    • I didn’t cast vague anything – Neither was I speaking, nor was I allowed to speak. And my allegations against Frank Garner nor any official has never been vague. I have posted an abundance of records for anyone actually wanting to review the facts and not just cast aspersions upon my character because they find it easier to label and dismiss me.

      • surelyyoujest11 | May 12, 2014 12:41 PM at 12:41 PM |

        Well, here are the records that really matter. The resolution of the appeal of his conviction. Quite a read.

        Enter case # DA 06-0067

        • Interesting to note: the Supreme Court did not even address all the issues raised on appeal. Never did get an answer as to why… No one at that level ever responds.

          Tell you what, why don’t you post the actual appeal?

          Again, I point you to the article I posted on the 2000+ false convictions overturned in the last 23 years. Pointing out that I have not yet successfully overturned my conviction does not effect anything in light of this.

          And finally, yet again, you would rather cast aspersions my way than address the actual documents showing criminal misconduct by Frank Garner. Still – even after a week – not a single person has tried to address the validity of a single document I have produced. All you keep trying to do is distract everyone from the facts by casting aspersions on me.

          Bottom line – regardless of my guilt or innocence, I have presented documents that indisputably establish criminal misconduct by Frank Garner and officials in Kalispell. Why don’t you find documents to counter these? Of course we both know the reason for that – because you can’t.

          • Ron, for the final time, you are persisting in a fantasy that there is an onus laid upon anyone here to dispute your claims. There isn’t.

            • I never said anyone had a duty to prove anything – I posted the statement I did to record my personal knowledge of Frank Garner’s malfeasance in office. I have responded as I have because people – like yourself – have consistently sought to attack my integrity and deflect from that issue by undermining my integrity rather than address Garner’s issues.

              You can say over and again that my issues are not important, but when you say that I am expecting people to believe what I say about Garner based solely on my word or on one incidental time stamp, you are saying that I should not be listened to because I lack credibility. Sorry, you spin it however you like, but the fact is I have only gone to defending my own case because others have sought to use my case as justification to not look into Frank Garner, which was my intention from the start.

  16. I just wanted to weigh in on this because I am the one who wrote the article, and re-posted Mr. Glick’s video on As I have stated, I have never met, nor ever had any contact, with Mr. Glick, not ever. As far as me being run by the Tea Party, that accusation is patently false. If anyone, and I mean anyone, who claims that they are a Conservative turns out to be a nitwit, I will expose them as fast as I would anyone else, and many of them know that. I know it makes for good headlines, but there is no one steering NorthWest Liberty News but me. All one needs to do is spend 15 minutes going over my site, and you will be able to tell that for yourself.


    Jim White

    • Hey Jim,

      Thanks for weighing in. I have defended your position from the beginning, and appreciate your taking the time to reassert it here. You found yourself subjected to the same misdirection as I did – although admittedly to a considerably lesser degree – it is just easier to cast blame on the person who speaks out rather than address the actual elements raised.

      I appreciate your posting of my video, and hope that you will continue to stand as a neutral voice in all of this.

    • I went to White’s website. It’s full of typical Tea Party paranoia. Its motto, “Picking the Lock on the Shackles of Tyranny,” shouts its mental instability.

  17. I for one, have sat down and read nearly everything, Before I left Montana and got stuck where I am in WA state because of finances, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Glick and given the ability to read as much of the information as he could show me at the time. I have since seen more of these documents thanks to the technology we have called File Transfer Protocol in which FTP is not just an abbreviation or type of server it is how we receive our uploads and downloads to and from websites, Emails etc. I am a Computer specialist, among my many talents I have an eye for graphics. I have personally used several programs freely available and very viable to use as a forensics tool to analyze and look at images such as the ones Mr. Glick has uploaded to his website. I kindly refer to and ask all here to read and with an open mind fully look at the date time stamps. I can and will if needed Sign and submit an affidavit to this website that those timestamps are REAL and not altered. The biggest thing here is the fact that I believe that Mt.Cowgirl is nothing but a troll or at the very least is acting like one. I myself am also an Independent, I have no real allegiance to any particular party. I may know Mr. Glick but I personally went over the documents on my own accord with NO bias as to their legitimacy at the time I received them. I will not re-post the procedures I used as I have posted them several other places, they are posted to Mr. White’s page where his article is respectfully hosted. I hereby also assert that Mr. Glick as per the documents I have seen and from what I personally have been through as a Neutral to his situation he IS innocent and has falsely been convicted. If anybody would care to challenge who I am, what I do or what I stand for… Go ahead, see where it gets you because “I’m not afraid to take a stand.”-Eminem “Not afraid”

    • Voting for republicans doesn’t make you an Independent… it makes you a republican who is uncomfortable being called one… or a tea party member who’s ashamed to show you’re drinking tea!

      • Not sure why you would post this, Norma. I can’t speak for Maverick, but I vote for people from all parties – because, as an independent, I vote for the individual I most feel has the best goals. This does not make me a Republican because I vote for their candidates – anymore than it makes me a Democrat, Libertarian or any other party… I just don’t see any party standing to the right side of every issue…

  18. Ron if your looking for someone to sympathise with you, or argue…. Dont!
    I don’t plan on changing my given opinion or giving you a soapbox to stand on.

    • How is it a soapbox to ask why you would call someone they are a closet-Republican?

    • Wait a minute. You don’t want to give him a soapbox… Are you saying you don’t want to give him a platform to speak from? In other words, you don’t want to give him the chance to speak. Am I getting that right? What is he saying that has you so scared to have him speak?

      I’ve gone to his website. I’ve seen his scans. They are all dated way before he was ever this convicted offender you all are going on about. And his page – if you go back far enough – has been complaining about Frank Garner long before this election, but a couple of years in fact. So why is everyone trying to say he is just trying to get back at someone running for office? Do you really think he planned this two or three years ago?

      So I thought – how long has he really been saying this stuff? He has been saying it after he was convicted, but is there a record of before he was. Some other place where someone could see if there was any truth that he was actually saying these things back when he claims he was.

      With that in mind, here is a really interesting find if you look – There’s an indexed page from a cite that’s not even active anymore about Frank Garner – and it talks about things happening in 2003. The same time his present rants are going on about. Check out this site:

      This is an indexed Geocities cite that has been down for years – someone has it archived. He says in the first page of this page that it is “July of this year, 2003”. And if you go to the second page, he starts talking about Mr. Garner right near the top of the page and saying the same things he is here.

      Maybe there’s something to all of this, I say. And maybe there’s a reason no one wants to give him a soapbox – because maybe what he is saying about Mr. Garner may actually be true.

      I should say also that what I found really interesting was how no major news media in the area has even given this airtime. I can’t find anything on KPAX, KECI, KTMF, the Interlake, anything… Best I found was discussion from regular people on the Interlake’s article about Mr. Garner and Mrs. Skees. Why is there a media blackout on this guy? I would think that if this guy really is full of it, some kind of expose would have been done disproving his claims. But there is nothing – neither for or against him.

      I was watching a Colorado station tonight and they were talking about a police officer who was in trouble for some kind of money scam. I really wasn’t paying attention to the specifics, but it made me think – when have we ever seen a scandal piece on any local police officer here? With this whole blackout deal, it makes me wonder if there is just a blanket coverup going on from the media – has there never been a bad cop in Kalispell, Montana?

      • One other point here – another missing point here is that neither candidate has gone on record for the man either. Not Mr. Garner and not Mrs. Skees. No one has backed him, nor has any candidate done anything other than flag him as a convicted offender. No one – and I do mean no one – has been able to refute his documents that I can find. There’s someone vouching for their authenticity through some kind of graphics analysis, but where are the documents disproving the ones this guy has posted online? And if he’s supposedly the “public face” of the Tea Party as this cite’s author claims, why is he not making appearances around town for them?

        Seems to me that this cite’s administrator is actually using this guy’s current status to back Mr. Garner’s candidacy. There’s nothing unbiased in this article at all – it is a direct attack on the Tea Party, under the disguise of being an attack on Mr. Glick…

      • Noah, I would just make one correction to the information you presented here:

        It seems you did not realize that the original site for this blog was not with wordpress, but with blogspot. In 2010, for reasons never explained, blogspot blocked posting to my blog – they did not remove it or strike any of its content, but I was no longer able to post new content. When asked, the only response I received was that new content was shut off to my site – not a reason why (I have long suspected that someone mentioned in the blog used their position in government to make a demand upon blogspot to cease and desist my postings, but since blogspot never actually removed anything, this is only a suspicion). So I set up a new site on wordpress, and have been there ever since. The original address is:

        This is the blog I originally set up in 2009 right after I was released from prison, and if you read that blog you will find I was talking about Garner’s duplicity clear back then, as well. So when you say I have only been talking about him for a couple of years on my blog, this is technically not accurate, since I have been talking about him in my blog now for over five years.

        But you’re right – I didn’t just start saying all this when I heard Frank Garner was running for office. I just made the video in response to that news – all the rest I have been saying online, as you have pointed out, since right after the lawsuit and the abduction of my girlfriend’s daughters by authorities back in 2009 – an abduction that I genuinely believe was orchestrated by Frank Garner to stop the lawsuit against himself and his department.

        • Oops – I mean right after I filed the lawsuit and the abduction of my girlfriend’s daughters back in 2003, not 2009. So I have been speaking out online against Frank Garner’s official misconduct for over eleven years now.

Comments are closed.