If you don’t have money to hire a lawyer you don’t have rights in America, it’s that simple.
Sure, poor people get “public defenders” when they’re accused of crimes, but for other legal actions, like defending yourself from criminal defamation, or suing a media outlet, like Jake Eaton tried doing, you either need money, or you need to be a lawyer yourself (or married to one, like Eaton).
For a quick look at Jake Eaton’s case, here’s some context on the dismissal and subsequent awarding of lawyers fees by the judge to Eaton’s media adversary:
A state court has dismissed a lawsuit filed in May against a Montana news outlet over its reporting on a complaint about a political consultant, citing a new Montana law designed to protect press freedoms. The judge also awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendants.
The 13th Judicial District Court dismissed the lawsuit from Republican political consultant Jake Eaton in an order dated Oct. 6. The order was distributed to defendants on Friday, Oct. 30. Attorneys’ fees haven’t yet been calculated.
The state law at the root of the decision is the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, passed by the Montana Legislature in 2025 as the state’s first anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”
What are anti-SLAPP laws? Great question. To better understand this acronym, here’s a description I found useful:
If you’ve ever hesitated before posting a review, signing a petition, speaking at a school board meeting, or calling out a powerful person online, you already understand the basic goal behind a SLAPP lawsuit.
SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. These lawsuits weaponize the legal system against free speech. People file these cases to punish and intimidate critics, not to win on the merits. The point often sounds simple: Make speaking up feel too expensive, too stressful, and too risky.
Journalists, activists, neighborhood leaders, researchers, whistleblowers, and everyday residents can all end up in the crosshairs of a SLAPP lawsuit. Even if the defendant ultimately wins, a SLAPP can still drain time, money, and energy along the way.
Have I been drained of time, money, and energy? Yes, and worse, but so far I haven’t inspired people to donate large sums of money to my cause, unlike the young man facing felony charges for shoving some Indians and telling them to go back to their country.
How much has THIS dude raised so far? About twenty grand in the first 24 hours.
Impressive.
A fundraiser for a Helena man accused of shoving a man of Indian descent and telling him to “go back to your country” raised more than $20,000 in its first 24 hours, while the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement supporting the charges.
Jaxton Tayte Collins, 21, was arraigned Oct. 27 on one felony count of malicious intimidation or harassment relating to civil or human rights and one misdemeanor count of assault.
An account on X, formerly known as Twitter, started the fundraiser last Wednesday on the platform GiveSendGo, a Christian-focused online crowdfunding website. The account, using the name Tom Hennessey, describes its owner as a “demonetized white independent journalist.”
What’s the secret sauce for inspiring people like this? Is hating foreigners more profitable than exposing local corruption? I guess it is, though I’m not doing what I’m doing to get money.
Speaking of hating foreigners, I wouldn’t say John Velk hates foreigners, because he’s a lawyer who could sue me, but what I will say is there does seem to be a political theme to his Facebook postings recently, like these two posts he made between “suing” and “grooving”:
One critical skillset lawyers must possess is the ability to communicate effectively, since their whole job is making legal arguments with words, but when I shared John Velk’s post about a Municipal Court judge’s controversial decision regarding a Congolese “woman beater”, the words I got from former Oregon lawyer, Kevin Hunt, were immediately condescending and dismissive.
I guess pointing out how John Velk was one of the many lawyers in Missoula who I tried reaching out to was somehow triggering to this member of the gatekeeping legal community, since Mr. Hunt immediately (and grotesquely) misrepresented what I consider to be “problems” in Missoula with this comment:
Am I upset that I can’t find a lawyer who will take my case “for free”? Of course I’m frustrated, but taking a case pro bono, or on contingency, isn’t simply doing legal work with no chance of financial compensation, it’s just more of a risk because the potential for compensation is deferred to either a settlement determined by a jury, or a judgement determined by a judge.
There’s also the risk of doing pro bono work if your client is a woman who turns around and files a complaint against you for not keeping her informed about her case.
Right, Kevin?
After looking at this reprimand, it appears that Mr. Hunt was so busy working the system that he forgot about the human he was ostensibly “helping” through the process, which is its own form of punishment when you’re dealing with lawfare.
Which brings me to the gatekeeping of the entire legal profession, a function I hope AI will destroy.
Are lawyers worried that their entire business model could be wiped out? You bet they are, so let’s look at how this problem is being framed, since the idea of freeing up MORE time (which you can bill for) should be seen as a mostly POSITIVE impact derived from AI-driven efficiencies. From the link:
Lawyers are expected to gain five hours per week from AI-driven efficiency, according to recent Thomson Reuters research; however, nearly two-thirds of them now view AI as a threat to their jobs or livelihoods.
This paradox exists because AI does not just make legal work faster, it also changes which work exists, who gets to do it, and most consequentially, how the next generation of lawyers develops the capacity to do it well.
Over the past year, a convergence has emerged among interdisciplinary experts within the legal profession. Technologists, legal executives, law firm leaders, academic researchers, and legal reformers — individuals who rarely share a stage — have independently arrived at the same diagnosis, which is that AI is hollowing out the developmental pipeline through which capable lawyers have been built for generations. What is alarming is that the profession is making this worse by treating this as a technological problem, when it is, at its core, a human and lawyer formation problem.
The question facing law schools, law firms, and the broader legal ecosystem is whether they can protect and deliberately cultivate the distinctly human capacities — which include judgment, fiduciary care, business acumen, and client trust — that AI cannot replicate. The five hours gained each week represent a choice, and what the profession does with them will determine whether lawyers remain essential or start to become, gradually and by their own hand, redundant.
Before I get to the legal case John Velk brought to my attention with his Facebook posting–the case I agree sets an insanely bad precedent by Municipal Court judge, Jake Coolidge–I want to highlight some of the posts I have written about lawfare and our totally fucked criminal justice system.
“My Marsupial Court Marijuana DUI Final Report” (January 27th, 2025)
“Will I Abide By A Plea Deal That Torches My First Amendment?” (March 12th, 2025)
“The Relationship That Nearly Ended My Life” (April 16th, 2026)
“Lawsuit Gatekeepers, _______, And The Bias Of Selection” (April 24th, 2026)
“Lessons In Lawfare” (May 22nd, 2026)
“University Of Lawfare” (June 22nd, 2026)
“Friendly Reminder To Local Officials That Open Meeting Laws Are Actual Laws” (August 23rd, 2026)
““Family Justice Center” Or Lawfare Central?” (September 25th, 2026)
“More Lessons From The University Of Lawfare” (October 13th, 2026)
“Does Montana Have A Structurally Misandrist Future Forming For The Victim Industry?” (October 22nd, 2026)
“When Does The System Become The Abuser and The Process Become The Punishment?” (October 28th, 2026)
“Let It Burn!” (October 31st, 2026)
Another impact of lawfare I’m going to highlight before highlighting the case of the Congolese woman beater is the social isolation that results, which is aided and abetted by poverty if you’re not wealthy enough to have private lawyers on retainer.
Those going through similar targeting, like Brandon Bryant, have confirmed how lonely it can be when you do what you think is the right thing, then get punished for it. When I saw someone online post something about loneliness, knowing a small bit of what he’s going through, I took a screenshot.
While divorcing someone I spent 25 years with (we were both 19 at the time) has been bad enough in terms of radically altering my housing, quality of social interactions, and financial resources, the last year has been fucking brutal, and there’s no end in sight.
One of the major differences between my situation and the Congolese woman beater is that legal action against me started as CIVIL actions, which lowers the standards of proof and removes my ability to get a court-appointed lawyer, since civil actions don’t risk jail time, therefore don’t warrant Public Defenders.
The man accused of physically hitting his partner DID face a criminal charge, but a criminal charge posed the additional risk of deportation, which apparently was too much consequence for Judge Jake Coolidge, who dismissed the case. This decision seems VERY wrong and will do SERIOUS damage to the court’s credibility in the larger fight playing out between Justice Court and City/County prosecutors, especially if local media amplifies this story.
Here’s some of the language of the appeal (I’m assuming) explaining the back and forth of this case between the courts:
There is much more at Velk’s original post, so give him a follow if you want the kind of insights we’re not supposed to be making in Missoula, like noticing when you see another act of alleged violence attributed to the same surname, or you find a woman who doesn’t understand that she shouldn’t be outing her clients on social media:
An incident around bar closing time in Missoula Sunday morning ended with gunfire. Now, two men are in custody.
One faces a charge of attempted deliberate homicide.
The other made his initial court appearance today on charges of criminal endangerment and a third DUI.
Court documents state on April 5 around 2:19 a.m., 33 year old Anthony Brodie was standing on the sidewalk of Ryman Street when he was struck by a vehicle.
Police say the vehicle was driven by defendant 36 year old Laurent Mugondozi.
For those keeping score, we’ve got a sexually confused stabber of math teachers getting no charges, a woman-beating Congolese refugee getting seeming special treatment for his criminal act, then felony charges for a shove and some mean words from a drunk kid, and criminal charges against me for the technical violation of a protection order that took civil claims like this:
…and turned them into one of four Travis Exclusion Zones, with my downtown TEZ banning me from this geographic area:
I’m not proud of the time I spent homeless, living in my box truck, but I did lean into it, and much of that conduct has now been cited and referenced in multiple cases against me, but it’s precisely because of my homelessness that a coffee shop like Break Espresso–which opens EARLY and closes LATE–was important to me and other “marginalized” people, like Steven Dailey, who I saw there regularly before he moved to Bozeman, murdered a woman, and then shot himself, allegedly.
In summary, it’s not just the lawfare that can destroy a person, it’s also the psychological wounds that one receives from larger cultural trends that literally allows victim cards to be played for some of the most horrendous crimes, like killing babies, trying to kill someone with a knife, and showing your host nation your appreciation by slapping a woman and clogging up an already fucked criminal justice system.
To counter the threat of total demoralization I have some acronyms I’ve developed, but the time isn’t right yet to share the #HeToo related one I’m still field-testing, so stay tuned.
And, as always, thanks for reading.
Travis, you post your writings on Facebook, where you enable public comments. You have the ability to disable comments, limit them to friends only, and otherwise filter them. This implies that you welcome comments concerning your writings. You are aware that those posts show on my feed. Accordingly, you should expect that I would comment on your posts, so that my 7,000+ friends and followers would know the extent to which I do, and do not, concur with your representations.
I’m glad that you are publishing the background and circumstances surrounding the various legal proceedings and deprivations of liberty you have endured. I’ve tried to offer friendly advice concerning the manner in which to present your situation, and when I believe you’ve damaged your cause by gratuitous, unnecessary forays that (despite your denials) come off as misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc., I’ve expressed that to you, directly and in comments to your posts, in a manner appropriate between friends. You’ve chosen to respond, by directing unethical tactics towards me.
You aren’t able to accept such feedback that is less than adulatory. A journalist is not obligated to treat people equally by any means, but if sincerely presenting as a journalist, has an ethical duty to be fair. Part of being fair, entails not depicting others in a false light, and not engaging in “yellow journalism” practices.
But that is precisely what you have done here. Angry that I posted a comment you deemed “dismissive,” you reacted by researching my regulatory history with the Oregon State Bar (OSB), and depicting me in a false light by deliberately publishing an incomplete excerpt of an OSB Journal account of a public reprimand, omitting all mitigating information, then stating that I was “too busy working the system” to promptly communicate entry of an order in a case I took on without fee, for expenses only, in another county, for a person in another state, who turned out to be a criminal, a liar, and ingrate. I agreed to represent (you say “help” — in quotation marks) that person, against my better judgment, at the plaintive entreaties of my (late) former live-in Oregon paramour, who had moved back to Wyoming to be near family, and taken a job at a law firm where the referred client was employed for a time.
The OSB found that I caused that client no harm by the delay in communicating entry of an order awarding her ex-husband his attorney fees in the matter.
You have intentionally held me out in a false light, and further implied that I was otherwise engaged in ongoing illegality, by stating I was “working the system.”
That client did not provide me with necessary documents and information in a timely manner, did not follow advice, did not meet with me until the morning of her proceeding (despite my having driven to the other county the previous day, and rented a room for that purpose and in order to get a sound sleep prior to the next day’s proceeding).That client rejected a very favorable settlement offer the morning of the proceeding and directed me to fully litigate the matter, involving her ex-husband’s failure to return their young son to Wyoming at the end of the boy’s summer visitation with his father in Oregon, and the father’s motion for physical custody, and for retroactive child support.
At the conclusion of the proceeding, that client and her mother compensated me for my out of pocket expenses.
Thereafter, when the judge predictably ruled in her husband’s favor, the client falsely claimed to the OSB that she had paid me to appeal the adverse ruling, and I had failed to do so. I had been unable to communicate with her for some time, as she had been fired and prosecuted for embezzling a large sum from an employer, and changed residences without informing me.
Nonetheless, I did not communicate with opposing counsel or the client in a reasonably prompt manner. At the time, I was greatly afflicted with a neurological disorder that significantly impaired my ability to attend to daily life activities — a mitigating factor found by the OSB. I contested the false allegations of the dishonest client, and fell on my sword concerning the delays in informing her of the adverse attorney fee order.
Your published, deliberate misrepresentations by omission, are defamatory as well as holding me out in a false light.
You need to admit that you have engaged in such conduct.
FYI, Martindale-Hubbard/Lawyers.com, the world’s leading lawyer rating service, based on surveys of other lawyers as well as judges, rated me as Distinguished, Very Ethical, with Very High Legal Ability.
I worked so hard that in some years, I made less than minimum wage. I fought for thousands of people. I accepted appointments to represent persons facing the death penalty, for starvation wages of $30/hr, in very complex cases in which I established numerous constitutional precedents, and saved the life of every one of them, more than a dozen, including: an undocumented Oaxacan young man who shot and killed a popular police officer who left behind a pregnant wife; a man convicted of torture murders of eight sex workers, and a man convicted of the slaying of the brother of a prominent Portland lawyer and his wife in their country home. I was also instrumental in freeing an innocent man from death row, and in the commutation of every Oregon death row inmate a few years ago. I represented some for 25+ years, in the trial courts, on direct review in the Oregon Supreme Court, and in the Supreme Court of the United States.
I could have become very wealthy practicing some other kind of law. Instead, I chose to represent the poor, the oppressed, the defenseless, and the damned.
In the course of doing so, I endured death threats, vandalization of my home, an attempted bombing of my office, and was falsely indicted following one murder trial, put on trial for five days, and acquitted in fifteen minutes. I worked during law school, 35 miles from my law school and residence, at a legal aid office. I passed the bar exam on first try, and found work at the Portland Document Center of a litigation support firm contracted by USDOJ in the WPPSS lawsuits (the biggest civil case ever brought, at the time) concerning the biggest bond default in history. That firm turned out to be a sideline of a CIA front company. I uncovered fraud by that company, and blew the whistle to then U.S. Rep Ron Wyden and an investigative journalist. I also organized the workers of that document center into a union. Management deemed me a threat and I was ordered to fly to Arlington, VA to meet with a “John Israel” purportedly to discuss upgrade of the 1985 computer document search system, something I was not versed in. Fearing for my safety, I was able to have a DOJ head litigator intercede and prevent my trip. My phone was tapped and I was followed by spooks.
I then was fired for leaking evidence of fraud. The firm then filed outrageous false accusations with the OSB that I had stolen classified material, and threatened to kill the project manager, among other lies. Rep. Wyden verified that I was cooperating in his investigation of fraud by the firm. After many months, the matter was closed in my favor. In the meantime, the firm fired 75% of the document work force in an attempt to bust the union. Nonetheless, the union prevailed in the certification election. The firm appealed, alleging that I and others used threats of violence to coerce workers to support unionization. The NLRB ruled for the workers, and the firm appealed to the full NLRB in DC. The union with which my the union I created affiliated (AFSCME), then failed to provide a lawyer to represent us before the NLRB. I ghost wrote the brief, which was submitted over the signature of the Business Agent of AFSCME Local 88, which also represented all City of Portland workers including unsworn Portland Police Bureau workers. The NLRB overruled a precedent based on my brief and certified the union. In the meantime,I was among fired former workers of the document center hired by AFSCME to organize Oregon Health Science University Hospital for AFSCME, replacing a corrupt Teamsters local. We prevailed. I was then hired as the new Business Agent for AFSCME Local 88. I would have been retired by age 45 with a nice pension and health benefits for life, had I stayed in that post, but I decided instead to practice criminal defense and constitutional law. I was on food stamps for three years. But I was soon taken under the wing of a superb criminal defense lawyer who mentored me. We co-counseled in many cases and were considered two of the very best defense lawyers in Oregon. BTW, that CIA front pled guilty to defrauding the U.S. gov’t.
~20 years later, the Abu Ghraib torture scandal was uncovered and I became a source for famed investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. You see, the firm I blew the whistle on years earlier, was contracted to provide clandestine services in Iraq. In one conversation, Sy Hersh said he had been able to account for all but one miscreant at Abu Ghraib, a man using the name of … none other than JOHN ISRAEL. This turned out to be the alias of a CIA assassin. My fears about that trip to Arlington were well-founded.
Travis, you are far, far off base when you accuse me of “working the system.” You sully my reputation with your deliberately misleading account of the OSB reprimand. I have not even mentioned my narrow escape from the Amazon jungie in 1981 before a planned kidnapping and murder of me by operatives of Occidental Petroleum. I empathize with what you are going through, but I was targeted for ruination and death by much more powerful forces, that I infiltrated, before you were out of diapers. You have poked some big sleeping bears, but you are still in the minor leagues, whereas fate dropped me in the majors. You are reckless in much of your conduct.
You owe me an apology, to say the least.
— J. Kevin Hunt