Montana

How four different lawyers could claim that they're the true Roosevelt County Attorney – Daily Montanan

Published

2 years ago

January 22, 2024

Press Room

How four different lawyers could claim that they're the true Roosevelt County Attorney – Daily Montanan

Four attorneys believe they may be the rightful Roosevelt County Attorney.

And it may be that only the 2024 election will answer the question of who is actually the county attorney.

It could be the person who won the last election for the office, lost the job when a judge agreed that he didn’t meet the qualifications of Montana law, and is now suing the county for back pay.

Or it could be the attorney who has been handling most of the litigation full time for the eastern Montana county, who said he’s filing paperwork to run in the 2024 election.

Or it could be the attorney from Fergus County who was hired by the commissioners and has said she’ll start on Feb. 20.

Or it could be the interim county attorney who has had a number disputes with the county commissioners, is being accused of botching a murder trial when she was the county attorney in Richland County, and is currently working in Utah.

The case of who is the Roosevelt County attorney has been at the heart of three court cases, and is spider’s web of accusations, case law and politics.

It started with a newspaper lawsuit

The turnover in the Roosevelt County Attorney’s Office began when Northern Plains Independent Publisher Darla Downs filed a lawsuit challenging former Roosevelt County Attorney Frank Piocos’ eligibility for the post.

Piocos had previously served as a deputy county attorney and was elected to the county attorney position after then-county attorney Austin Knudsen successfully ran for Montana Attorney General.

Downs proved to a district court judge that Piocos didn’t maintain a residence in the county, a requirement of the position by state statute, and that because he didn’t meet the eligibility requirements, his election should be overturned.

The case wound its way to the Montana Supreme Court, which agreed with district court Judge Katherine Bidegaray that Piocos was ineligible.

That decision left Roosevelt County with a gaping hole in its legal department, and the three county commissioners looked for different options, eventually settling on former Richland County Attorney and Roosevelt County native Janet Christoffersen.

Meanwhile, Piocos is suing the county for back pay and attorney’s fees, arguing that he should be reinstated, saying that neither the state’s Supreme Court, nor the original decision from Bidegaray’s nor Montana law, provides a way to remove a person from office.

Interim county attorney

The commissioners appointed Christoffersen. She is currently at the center of an appeals case at the Montana Supreme Court that accuses her of withholding evidence that may have exonerated a person convicted of homicide, although that case doesn’t appear to have factored into any of the decisions by the Roosevelt County Commissioners.

But just several months into her tenure, the commissioners attempted to replace Christoffersen, saying that they had originally agreed to hire her for a four-month interim contract — to serve until they found someone more permanent. Christoffersen said that four months was an arbitrary period the commissioners threw out, giving her time to decide if the position was right.

She was the Richland County Attorney from 2018 to 2022, when she decided not to run for re-election. She had previously served as a deputy county attorney there and was in private practice for 10 years. Prior to that, she had run for a state district court judge against Bidegaray. Previous reporting by the Sidney Herald said she grew up on a ranch near Froid.

However, when the county commissioners attempted to remove and replace Christoffersen after that four-month interim, she filed a lawsuit against Roosevelt County, challenging whether the commissioners had the right to remove her.

In a lawsuit that played out in September and October, Roosevelt County District Court Judge Michael Moses said that state law allows the county commissioners to appoint a county attorney if one is removed or leaves office, but it only allows them to appoint an attorney who would serve until the next election, not a series of interim attorneys. That effectively handed the position back to Christoffersen, who continued doing work for the county.

However, during the same time, she also accepted a job as a deputy county attorney in Utah, according to court filings, raising the ire of the county commissioners, as well as questions as to whether she was fulfilling her responsibilities.

Advertisement

County commissioners make changes

The Roosevelt County Commissioners then decided to keep her position, in line with Moses’ ruling, but made structural changes. They made the county attorney a part-time position and changed the deputy county attorney’s role from part-time to full-time. Currently, Thomas Bleicher is the deputy county attorney, working full-time. Roosevelt County Commissioners also bumped the deputy county attorney pay to be 85% of the county attorney’s $119,215 salary.

Christoffersen’s legal battle against Roosevelt County continues, with her saying in court filings that commissioners have created a hostile work environment and retaliation.

In his ruling granting a preliminary injunction against the Roosevelt County Commissioners, Moses said that Christoffersen was qualified to be appointed as county attorney, and that she holds the office until either a vacancy or the next election. He said that state law did not allow the commissioners the power to remove a qualified attorney whom they chose to appoint.

Yet earlier this month, the Roosevelt County Commissioners decided to hire a full-time county attorney and selected Theresa Diekhans of Fergus County.

Deputy County Attorney Bleicher voiced concerns about that process, saying that he was cut off from asking more questions during the interview process with Diekhans, according to reporting from the Northern Plains Independent. Meanwhile, Christoffersen objected, saying that proper public notice wasn’t given for the interviews, and said that she was contemplating running for county attorney during the upcoming election in 2024.

Bleicher also confirmed that he had picked up paperwork so that he could run for the position as well.

At the meeting, according to the reports from the Northern Plains Independent, Roosevelt County Commissioner Gary Macdonald said, “We went from the frying pan to the fire.”

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

5 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

17 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link