Embattled Minnesota officials target journalist’s parental rights in final desperate attempt to silence him

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

On October 9, 2013 a guardian ad litem employed by the Ninth Minnesota Judicial District requested a District Judge place restrictions on the parental rights of a journalist that was publicly chronicling the activities of officials employed in the… wait for it…

Yep…you guessed it…Ninth Minnesota Judicial District.

Matthew J. Petrovich, guardian ad litem, argued to the Family Court that Timothy Holmseth posed a threat to the mental health of his son.

The Motion was initially filed by Rhonda Callahan, the mother of Holmseth’s son, who asserted Holmseth was delusional. To support her allegation, Callahan submitted as exhibits, articles published by Holmseth on his website. The select articles were highly critical of the local legal community.

Holmseth steadfastly maintains he has been targeted for labeling by people that have something to hide.

In a scathing report to the Court, Petrovich told the Judge that Holmseth claims to be a victim of harassment and stalking. He dismissed Holmseth’s claims, noting nobody has ever been charged with any crime based upon Holmseth’s allegations. “Mr. Holmseth attributes that, in part, to the corruption of the East Grand Forks Police Department and City Attorney Ron Galstad” Petrovich said.

Petrovich’s statement was dripping with sarcasm.

“My great concern is that the degree of paranoia that Mr. Holmseth views everything in his life will have a very detrimental effect on [his son], Petrovich said.

The deed was done.

In the strictest legal sense – now – either a child protection act has taken place – or a very serious crime has occurred. Either Holmseth poses a threat to his son; or, rogue elements of the legal community had just gone nuclear in their effort to silence him.

Petrovich essentially introduced allegations, which Holmseth made against the EGFPD and City Attorney Ronald Galstad, into a Family Court, as if the act of making the allegations was evidence Holmseth was mentally unstable. Petrovich then described Holmseth as being paranoid about everything in his life and then presented him as a threat to the mental health of his own son; thus recommending supervised visits.

Petrovich is either bold or stupid.

Indeed – this case will now reveal one of two things to be true. Either Timothy Holmseth is mentally unstable and is simply imaging the things he is publishing; or a host of public officials have committed a federal crime.

Federal law strictly probibits the assembly of individuals to conspire to oppress, threaten, or in any other way sepertate a person from their rights protected by the United States Constitution.

During the October 9 court hearing, Petrovich lamented to the Judge that Holmseth had filed a complaint against “Ronald Galstad.” He then told the Judge that Holmseth had filed a complaint against everybody except “Kevin Bacon.”

It was clear Petrovich believes filing a complaint is against the rules – as opposed to being the rule.

Honorable Tamara Yon was already aware of Holmseth’s complaint against Galstad, because she was the one that forwarded it to the Minnesota Lawyer’s Board at Holmseth’s request.

Holmseth’s complaint details a threat made against him by Galstad in October of 2012.

Holmseth’s Affidavit sets forth that Attorney Michael LaCoursiere, public defender, relayed a message to Holmseth from Galstad, warning that if he insisted on a jury trial, and refused to accept an Alford plea, Galstad was going to call Sgt. Chris Olson and Deputy Jesse Haugen to lie on the witness stand to obtain a conviction.

In Holmseth’s complaint to the Minnesota Lawyer Board and FBI – he challenges the two lawyers to a polygraph – offering to go first.

Holmseth says he will pass the test – Galstad and LaCoursiere will fail if they say they didn’t do it.

Attorney LaCoursiere also told Holmseth the cops had a plan to eventually have Holmseth put in St. Cloud State Prison.

According to the operating logic of Petrovich – Holmseth’s complaint against Galstad and LaCoursiere is evidence he should see his child under supervision.

Holmseth, an experienced news reporter, had been diligently submitting requests for public documents, filing grievances regarding misconduct, and using his publication to inform the public about the results.


Holmseth was now on notice – if he ever planned on seeing his son more than an hour a week, he’d start picking up what the State of Minnesota was putting down. But actually…Holmseth had known what the State of Minnesota was putting down for quite some time.

In July of 2013 Holmseth sent a letter to EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund regarding a hard-drive that Hedlund’s officers seized from Holmseth’s home-office. Holmseth wanted the City of East Grand Forks to pay for the forensic data recovery of the hard-drive because it had been ruined while in police custody.

“I would imagine it is not a real good idea to destroy evidence involving a federal kidnapping. This situation is further exasperated by the fact my hard-drive contained information regarding my journalistic work product, attorney client information, your Office, and Attorney Ronald Galstad,” Holmseth said.

Hedlund responded to Holmseth and said he would be looking into the matter.

In the meantime, Holmseth received an email from Petrovich. “I’ve seen the updated posts on your website and I notice that you will respond to emails at all hours of the day, so you are clearly spending a lot of time on your computer,” Petrovich said.

The State of Minnesota was putting it down – but Holmseth refused to pick it up.

“Please consider that if you are spending anywhere near as much time sitting at your computer as claimed, it is sending [your son] a pretty direct message about what is important to you,” Petrovich said.

Petrovich was letting Holmseth know he’d better start thinking about what is “important” to him – and that meant he was to stop using his “computer” and quit updating his “website”.

Petrovich’s strange ambition and interest in HOLMSETH VS. CALLAHAN was nothing new to Holmseth. In 2012, a meeting was held and attended by two play therapists that worked with the minor child. The elder, more seasoned therapist, expressed concern about Petrovich. She said that never in her entire career had she ever seen a case where the guardian ad litem was so “deeply involved” in the affairs of a family where the “child is safe in both homes.”

On August 12, 2013 Holmseth received a response from Chief Hedlund about his hard-drive. Hedlund advised him that the City would was not responsible for the condition of the hard-drive. Hedlund copied the letter to City Attorney Galstad.

On September 30, 2013 Holmseth contacted Chief Hedlund again about the hard-drive and requested the Police Department provide him a copy of any mirror image of the drive that might have been created.

Hedlund responded to Holmseth the same day. “I have spoken to the investigators involved in this situation and they assure me that no copy of any information was made by law enforcement in this situation. The officers used a program that allowed them to view the contents of your hard-drive without any changes occurring during their investigation,” he said.

Did Hedlund say the officers searched the hard-drive? Yes – he did. He also broke practice and did not provide a copy of this particular letter to City Attorney Galstad.

As you are about to see – we are now getting closer to why Petrovich wants Holmseth to stop what he is doing.

Hedlund admitted that police officers searched the hard-drive.

On January 4, 2013 Prosecutor Galstad told Judge Yon in open court that the ‘Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)’ would not conduct a forensic search on Holmseth’s hard-drive without another warrant.

According to Galstad – the BCA was involved in the case and any search of the hard-drive required another warrant.

The original warrant directed law enforcement to take the items into custody and retain them. It did not order any person to search the 500 GB hard-drive. However – ‘possession’ of a hard-drive is all that is required if corrupt police officers have software that can be used without leaving a trace – as Chief Hedlund described.

On November 25, 2013 a Motion to Compel was heard at the Justice Center because Holmseth wanted a copy (of a copy) of his hard-drive – if in fact the State had created one. During the court hearing Holmseth learned something that Hedlund did not tell him in his September 30, 2013 letter.

Holmseth learned that a Polk County Sheriff’s Office investigator was the officer that searched the hard-drive. This was the first time Holmseth knew anything about the Sheriff’s Office being involved in the matter.

Petrovich knew that Holmseth was rapidly acquiring the secret facts of the case and would soon assemble the information like a jig-saw puzzle. Petrovich was using Holmseth’s son to blackmail him in hopes the extortion would make him stop.

Nonetheless, on November 26, 2013 Holmseth contacted Polk County Sheriff Bard Erdman and requested all documentation in possession of the Sheriff’s Office regarding the matter.

On December 4, 2013 Sheriff Erdman’s office provided Holmseth an Incident Report generated by Sgt. Investigator Michael Norland. He was the investigator that hooked up the software to Holmseth’s hard-drive to search it.

Holmseth learned something new – again. He learned the Sheriff’s Office reported receiving his hard-drive from Officer Aeisso Schrage with the ‘Pine-to-Prairie Drug Task Force.’

The Pine-to-Prairie Drug and Gang Task Force is a federally funded operation designed to provide financial assistance and resources to law enforcement in efforts to deal with serious criminal activities such as drug trafficking, white slavery, motorcycle gangs, etc.

Now Galstad and the gang are defrauding the feds?

On December 6, 2013 Chief Hedlund wrote Holmseth and advised him he could not provide Holmseth with the ‘Chain of Evidence’ form regarding his property, which he had requested, because neither the EGFPD nor the PCSO kept one.

Apparently – neither the EGFPD nor PCSO thought the polices and procedures of the Pine-to-Prairie Task Force and BCA would require they keep a ‘chain of evidence’ form on their big operation. Sure – these seasoned officers believed they could travel from town to town, location to location, vehicle to vehicle, with a hard-drive they seized, and nobody would ever ask any questions about chain of evidence at a subsequent trial.

And – presumably – according to Petrovich – Holmseth’s belief that failing to keep a chain of evidence is simply a sign of dangerous “paranoia.”

The oddity of the supposed ‘Task Force’ involvement and the elusive behavior of both the EGFPD and PCSO regarding chain of evidence, caused Holmseth to re-think the original raid on his home-office, and the fact the officers placed his property in storage containers with labels that read “Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)”.

Holmseth had always believed the BCA was really involved because Prosecutor Galstad talked about the BCA to Judge Yon in open court regarding the hard-drive.

On December 6, 2013 Holmseth contacted the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and inquired about their involvement in the State’s case against him.

Each response was a bomb-shell.

“The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension had no involvement in this case,” said Drew Evans, assistant superintendent, BCA.

“There are no BCA personnel serving on that task force. 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.

The EGFPD and City Attorney Ronald Galstad had been staging a huge Task Force operation, claiming to a Judge that it involved the BCA, while simultaneously (secretly) searching a hard-drive without a warrant.

It was all a sham and the police are the one that were committing the crimes.

When Holmseth’s efforts began to uncover the criminal activity taking place – a guardian ad litem for the State of Minnesota was brought in to testify that Holmseth was paranoid and could not be trusted to care for his own child.

This is a developing story.

On 12/28/13 Holmseth filed a formal complaint to Matthew Petrovich’s supervisor Traci Kapella.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s