Oh, the lessons we learn in life. The gravel pit debacle has been an enlightening experience, revealing new depths of manipulation and corruption, particularly through the abuse of legal processes. The issue of “lawfare”—using legal systems to stifle legitimate business operations—has become a serious impediment in Montana.
Consider a scenario where it’s permissible for a non-profit to make unfounded accusations, tarnish reputations, and hinder individuals from earning a living or utilizing their property rights. Picture a scenario where such organizations, buoyed by funds from extremist or naive backers, disrupt the operations of hardworking, reputable businesses without any factual basis. And if they lose in court? They can simply dissolve, with no personal consequences for their members. This isn’t a hypothetical; it’s a reality embodied by entities like the Gateway Conservation Alliance, a disturbing trend affecting the entire state of Montana.
You ask for my evidence? Here’s just one small example: a post they made publicly on Facebook .
And here is the comment I made on GCA’s Facebook post:
“Your post marks a step forward, as it’s the first time you’ve even attempted to provide evidence, which is something I’ve been requesting from the beginning. However, your approach here is deeply irresponsible. You’re making a significant claim that could have serious repercussions for our community and for TMC, yet you’ve offered no solid data or verifiable evidence beyond the vague mention of a “neighbor.”
Who is this neighbor? Where is this information coming from? What are the details—what wells are we talking about, when were they measured, what type of wells are they, and how do these measurements compare over time? Without specifics, we have no way to understand the true factors behind the alleged drop.
You haven’t done the research, but you’ve already published your conclusions. As a landowner, you’ve left me with no meaningful way to follow up or ensure that we’re protecting people’s water levels. Surely, there must be data to support such a serious claim, data that can be gathered and analyzed properly.
Making a public statement without concrete evidence is reckless, shortsighted, and only fuels distrust in your organization. You must see that. If you have real, verifiable evidence, please share it so we can make informed decisions. If not, it’s time to reconsider your approach.”
I don’t blame them for hiding my comment on their post so that only I can see it. It’s telling that they haven’t got back to me.
The lack of personal liability for non-profit members fosters a dangerous scenario, incentivizing reckless and damaging claims. From ranchers to miners, loggers, and developers—no sector is immune. The troublemakers are often recent transplants, wielding baseless environmental claims as weapons of moral superiority. Their ideology is clear: humanity, portrayed as a blight on the natural world, must be controlled, neglecting the fact that responsible stewardship can actually enhance what we’ve been given.
These attitudes have real consequences. For example, misguided restrictions on forest management result in unchecked wildfires, filling Montana’s skies with smoke each summer—a visible reminder of policy failures. The potential cessation of responsible mining activities would similarly affect us, felt deeply in our economic wellbeing.
To counteract these detrimental tactics, several measures could be implemented:
- Mandatory Insurance or Bonds:
Non-profits should be required to carry insurance or post bonds to compensate those harmed by false claims. - Enhanced Legal Penalties:
Sanctions should be imposed on individuals who misuse non-profit statuses to harass others, including prohibitions on forming new non-profits. - Stronger Liability Mechanisms:
Laws must be enforced to hold individuals personally accountable for baseless or malicious claims. - Increased Transparency:
Non-profits should be mandated to reveal the evidence underpinning their public assertions. - Minimum Requirements for Court:
Introduce thresholds for evidence that non-profits must meet to bring a case to court, fostering a more responsible use of our legal system. - Court Costs:
If a non-profit’s lawsuit is deemed malicious, they should be liable for all associated court costs, potentially extending to individual board members.
Implementing these strategies could significantly deter non-profits from pursuing groundless legal actions and ensure that they operate with integrity. Without such reforms, the viability of economic activities in Montana, beyond just tourism, hangs in the balance. As someone who values dominion, property rights, and the notion of leaving the world better than we found it, I believe it’s crucial we address these challenges head-on.
And so, I pose this direct challenge to the Gateway Corruption Alliance—I’m aware you follow these discussions. If you possess even a single shred of evidence supporting any of your allegations against my family and TMC, from claims of river pollution to the supposed degradation of traffic safety, I invite you to present it here. Share the concrete proof for all to see. But you won’t, because you can’t. Your continued silence is deafening. It’s time for you to acknowledge this masquerade and step aside so we can bet busy making this valley a better place.