Evidence of serious misconduct mounting against officials
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
Did EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad purposely lie to a District Judge to create the false appearance a Defendant he was prosecuting was the subject of a major criminal investigation by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?
The evidence against Galstad is mounting.
Statements made during a court hearing on January 4, 2013 by Galstad, indicate he was advancing a deception that originally began on December 13, 2012 when Officer Aeisso Schrage, EGFPD, convinced the Honorable Jeff Remick to grant his petition for a search warrant for the home-office of Timothy Holmseth.
Galstad told Judge Yon that the ‘Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’ would not conduct a forensic search of Holmseth’s hard-drive without a separate search warrant – he then added that his Office was going to be requesting that warrant from the Court.
The BCA has made it clear they had nothing to do with law enforcement’s activities regarding Prosecutor Galstad’s case against Holmseth.
“We were not requested to conduct a forensic examination on your computer,” said Drew Evans, assistant superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, responding to some questions by Holmseth. “The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension had no involvement in this case,” he said.
But actions by Galstad and the EGFPD show local law enforcement was attempting to make it look like a BCA operation. During the December 12, 2013 raid on Holmseth, they bagged evidence in plastic storage container labeled “Bureau of Criminal Apprehension – Minnesota Department of Public Safety”.
“The BCA had no role in the investigation you describe and did not attach any tags to evidence in that case,” said Jill Oliveira, public information officer, Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
On September 30, 2013 EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund responded to a complaint filed by Holmseth regarding the fact his hard-drive had been returned to him inoperable. Hedlund advised Holmseth that his hard-drive had been searched; but didn’t say by whom.
Hedlund’s statement on September 30 was the first time Holmseth had been told that a search had been conducted on his hard-drive. The warrant-less search was conducted by Sgt. Michael Norland, investigator, Polk County Sheriff’s Office – Norland reported he found no sign of illegal activity on the hard-drive.
Investigator Norland reports that on December 15, 2012 he was given Holmseth’s hard-drive along with two cell phones. He says he was asked to search the hard-drive for any sign of illegal activity. He reported he received the property from Officer Aeisso Schrage of the Pine-to-Prairie Task Force.
Norland’s report reveals that the police actions against Holmseth by law enforcement were being held out as a BCA operation, connected with a gang and drug task force.
Norland reports that he received the hard-drive on December 15. However, he states he did not perform his search on the hard-drive until April 3, 2013.
Why didn’t he search it right away?
Galstad’s statement to Judge Yon about the BCA needing a warrant to search the hard-drive may explain why Norland didn’t immediately perform a search – he didn’t do it because he knew he didn’t have a warrant.
The question is – what changed on April 3, 2013 that made Norland believe it was okay to search the hard-drive?
The answer may be contained in Norland’s report.
Norland reports that on March 29, 2013 he received a telephone call from Lt. Detective Rodney Hajicek, EGFPD regarding Holmseth’s hard-drive. He does not state what Hajicek told him. However – Norland’s next entry states that on April 3, 2013 he hooked Holmseth’s hard-drive up to a forensic computer and searched it.
Lt. Hajicek at the local police department has no authority over a Polk County Sheriff’s Office investigator, which creates questions about what Hajicek might have said to Norland to cause him to search hard-drive.
Norland further states that after he returned the hard-drive to the EGFPD, Officer Schrage returned with it, and asked him to make a copy of it. Norland states he did not make the copy due to time constraints.
Why did the police want a copy of 500 GB hard-drive that an investigator just told them contained no sign of illegal activity?
Answers to the questions regarding law enforcement illegal activity and relentless pursuit of Holmseth may be found in letters and official grievances he made to a District Judge, Office of Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility, East Grand Forks City Council, and Minneapolis FBI.
On July 1, 2012 Holmseth reported select officials from the 9th Minnesota Judicial District to the United States Attorney and Minneapolis FBI.
On July 9, 2013 Honorable Tamara Yon forwarded an Affidavit drafted by Holmseth to the Minnesota Lawyer Board. The Affidavit reported an extremely disturbing and criminal plot that had been relayed to him by Attorney Michael LaCoursiere, public defender, State of Minnesota. LaCoursiere told him that if he insisted on a jury trial, Galstad was simply going to call two police officers to lie on the witness stand to convict him. LaCoursiere also told Holmseth the cops had plans to have him put in St. Cloud State Prison.
Holmseth had already reported misconduct and highly illegal activities by officials to the FBI before the following took place:
Police officers with the EGFPD storm Holmseth’s home-office; they find nothing illegal whatsoever. The police search his car; they find nothing illegal. Law enforcement performs a secret warrant-less search on Holmseth’s hard-drive; they find nothing illegal.
So – why are police and officials acting like the BCA is involved; using BCA stickers on evidence bags; and referring to the Pine-to-Prairie Drug Force?
This is a developing story.
Related Stories Click Here