Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem program used for criminal extortion

Embattled police department and public officials involved in blackmail and defamation scheme?

by Timothy Charles Holmseth

Is an embattled prosecutor in Northern Minnesota using a  court appointed guardian ad litem to achieve improper legal access to a man’s  parental rights; for purposes of extortion and witness tampering?

Yes.

Here’s why.

When public officials get caught breaking the law, their  instincts to escape responsibility for their behavior are no different than your  average bum or addict on the street.

In January of 2013 East Grand Forks City Attorney Ronald  Galstad found his feet stuck firmly in cement when he told Honorable Tamara Yon  during open court that he was in communications with the Minnesota Bureau of  Criminal Apprehension (BCA) regarding a forensic search he wanted done on a  hard-drive that police had seized from Timothy Charles Holmseth.

As it turned out – Galstad was not working with the BCA.

Along with rogue members of the 9th Minnesota  District’s legal community, Galstad was in the process of setting Holmseth up –  using a Pine-to-Prairie Drug Task Force raid. The police had conned a district judge  into believing they needed to seize Holmseth’s property so he could not destroy  evidence; obtained a warrant; and stored the property in BCA containers. 

Nothing illegal was found during the raid because Holmseth was not committing any  crimes in the first place. The real objective of the search and seizure was to  obtain Holmseth’s hard-drive.

The best laid plans of mice and men.

In December of 2013 the BCA disavowed Galstad, and stated  they had nothing to do with him or the BCA evidence stickers that had been used.  They also made it clear they had no agent working on the Pine-to-Prairie Drug  Task Force. They had not been involved in Galstad’s shenanigans at all.

It only gets worse.

While Pinocchio was telling Judge Yon how the BCA  was the agency he was working with to forensically search Holmseth’s  hard-drive, he secretly arranged for a deputy from the Polk County Sheriff’s  Office (PCSO) to search the hard-drive using software that leaves no trace of  its activity.

The activities of the officers indicate they may have made  an illegal copy of the hard-drive and/or had other illegal plans.

When the criminal activity was exposed, the EGFPD and PCSO  both claimed they had not kept a chain of evidence form on the hard-drive,  which they had been moving from location to location for over three months.

How did all this incriminating information get out?

It came out because Holmseth began filing formal complaints,  making document requests to the EGFPD, and publishing articles about it on the  Web. The evidence Holmseth was seeking was obtainable, but only if he could endure  the soft-kill terror tactics of the State until the Police Department finally turned  over the records.

It wasn’t easy – Holmseth was prying on the closet door that  led to all the EGFPD’s  skeletons. The Department was doing  everything possible to stall production of documents because Holmseth is an  independent publisher that already had national attention on him due to  journalistic work he did on a federal kidnapping.

In 2009, Holmseth conducted hundreds of hours of interviews  with individuals involved in the national profile kidnapping of HaLeigh  Ann-Marie Cummings. During the interviews he also learned highly volatile  information regarding the mysterious disappearance and murder of Caylee Marie  Anthony.

It was in 2009 the local police first heard Holmseth’s name;  and it wasn’t because he was committing any crimes.

Days after Holmseth obtained  highly volatile information about a kidnapping, the group that staged the  child’s abduction made contact with the mother of Holmseth’s son, Rhonda  Callahan, North Dakota. Callahan did not know any of the members of the group; but the relationship instantly budded.

The paper trail is there to tell the story.

The phones at EGFPD and Polk County Social Services (PCSS) lit up like a Christmas tree. Callahan and members of the group began calling  and emailing the authorities with claims that Holmseth had a mental problem and  abused his kids.

If this had been teenagers making crank phone calls to anonymous people to ask if their refrigerator was running it might have been funny. But these were adult professionals calling law enforcement and social services to discredit a journalist that had just learned the truth about a kidnapping.

Holmseth – an award-winning newspaper reporter; a single  parent that had been awarded sole physical custody of his four year-old  daughter; a respected person by any standard; was now under full siege by  operatives of a human trafficking operation based out of Florida.

Holmseth soon began to receive threats and phone calls that  warned the State was going to take his children away if he didn’t shut his  mouth. The initial stage of the plan failed when, in October of 2009, a play  therapist that Callahan tried to enlist to work with Holmseth’s son, told PCSS the child  loved his dad; was not afraid of his dad; and enjoyed going to his dad’s home.  The therapist said the child did not present with any of the symptoms reported  by Callahan at intake.

In early 2011 Holmseth published a book about the missing  child HaLeigh Cummings. Within days, the false accusations of neglect and abuse  were back in full force. This time the false allegations were being made in the  Roseau Family Court.

In late 2011 Matthew Petrovich, guardian ad litem, 9th  Minnesota Judicial District, was assigned to case number 60-FA-13-468.

The case is now set to change the public’s understanding regarding  children caught in the middle of custody disputes, and how valuable they are to  government officials – for use in blackmail and extortion schemes.

The murky, abstract, and often subjective nature of high conflict  child custody cases, are often quagmires of lies and half-truths. The standard  of proof in custody cases surrounds the ‘best interest of the child’ concept,  which is rife for manipulation and has made Family Courts around the country a liar’s paradise.

But case number 60-FA-13-468 has out-lived the liars, and no  longer provides the pathological players the little abstract paradise they once enjoyed. The  passing of time is betraying the sins of the government officials, that all too  often, skate along on some kind of assumed integrity that does not really  exist.

HOLMSETH VS. CALLAHAN has become the Rosetta stone to  understanding how criminal elements successfully exploit the Family Court to  extort their adversary.

HOLMSETH VS. CALLAHAN has become a blueprint that shows  how child exploitation, disguised as child protection, is diabolically implemented  to cover up and conceal organized criminal activity.

That is what Matthew Petrovich did when he used his position  as a guardian ad litem to come to the aid of Galstad and his ilk.

On December 29, 2013 Holmseth reported on his website, Write  Into Action, that Petrovich used his position as GAL on a Family Case file to  apply extortion against him (Holmseth) in violation of Title 18, U.S.C.,  Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights.

The published article read in  part:

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.

“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.

Petrovich told the Court in his  written report that he believed Holmseth’s “paranoia” posed a threat to his son.  He then recommended Holmseth see his child under supervision. Petrovich subsequently  complained in open court that Holmseth had filed complaints against everybody  except “Kevin Bacon”.

No evidence was presented to the  court that would connect Holmseth’s son to his work as a journalist. Petrovich’s  assertion that Holmseth shares sensitive information with his son was presented  as something Petrovich ‘thinks’ that Holmseth ‘must’ do.

Holmseth’s ‘violation’ was  filing complaints. By any other definition this activity would be called  kidnapping.

However – things were occurring  in the background regarding Holmseth, the East Grand Forks Police Department,  and Galstad that would soon bring a wealth of hidden events and secret  realities into sudden view.

When all the pieces of the  puzzle are put together a very disturbing picture emerges. 

Petrovich boldly asserted to the  Court that Holmseth’s use of the grievance process is direct evidence of Holmseth’s  diminished mental state. This shows how Petrovich views the proper ‘process’  and ‘procedure’ being followed by Holmseth, with a contempt so strong, that he applied  an un-diagnosed personality disorder to label Holmseth because of it.

But Petrovich’s stance against  Holmseth did not begin during a court hearing on October 9, 2013. It existed  from the moment he was assigned to the case.

Honorable Donna Dixon appointed  Petrovich in 2011 due to (a second round of) very serious child abuse  allegations made against Holmseth by Callahan. The Judge also said she wanted  to see medical files, which recorded the facts and circumstances surrounding a  violent episode of hit-and-run; a topic being strategically avoided by Callahan  and her lawyer.

Petrovich too, completely avoided  the hit-and-run issue.

However – medical records show  the child was extremely traumatized after he witnessed his mother deliberately slam  her car into his father at a school picnic. Medical records illuminate the true  effect it had on the child because he was in the car; saw the impact; heard the  thud. Although the child’s mother quickly sped away from the scene, she was not  charged with any crime whatsoever by the EGFPD or PCSO.

It was okay to hit ‘Timothy Holmseth’ with a car and leave the scene.

Within two months, Callahan would  have a harassment order against Holmseth, and would launch a full gamut of new  neglect and abuse accusations that would result in an investigation by Grand  Forks County Child Protection Services.  Holmseth,  again, was cleared by CPS.

However – Petrovich – now appointed to the case – appeared to  have a very specific agenda he was pursuing. He was fine with Callahan’s  explanation that she ‘moved’ Holmseth ‘out of the way’ using her car.

Petrovich was not influenced by  the findings of CPS and stated that just because they didn’t find anything,  didn’t mean something didn’t happen.

But the truth has tale to tell.

Petrovich spoke with the play  therapist that told CPS in 2009 the child totally loves and enjoys being with his dad. The therapist reported  to Petrovich that the child was exhibiting dangerous levels of ‘alienation’  during more recent sessions. She advised Petrovich that while the child was with  Callahan, he was not in a secure environment to develop a relationship with his  father. 

Petrovich’s corruption was so  utterly complete that he did not even report to the Court that he’d spoken with the  play therapist – much less have reported the problems the therapist identified.

After meeting with Holmseth only  one time, Petrovich recommended Holmseth submit to a Parental Capacity test  with a psychologist. Holmseth passed the test with flying colors. He had taken  the same battery of tests in 2008 with the same results.

Holmseth’s parenting-time was  reinstated – but – a phantom investigation – continued.

Petrovich insisted the six  year-old child have a cell phone when he was with his father. The child  believed he was supposed to spy on his dad and would make reports to Petrovich.

Petrovich made reports to Child  Protective Services against Holmseth that were immediately screened out. He  recommended on multiple occasions that Holmseth’s parenting-time be suspended –  a request that was consistently denied by the Judge. 

Every indication showed Petrovich  was attempting to manufacture a (bogus) child abuse/neglect case against Holmseth,  and he repeatedly alluded to Holmseth’s mental health. Petrovich’s actions  showed he was very dedicated to his objective of making the Court believe  Holmseth was imagining things.

There is a very good reason for  that. Holmseth was putting the jig-saw puzzle together regarding the EGFPD and PCSO and Petrovich knew it.

Petrovich needed to convince the  Court that Holmseth was ‘delusional’ and ‘paranoid’ and not to be believed.

Between November of 2011 and May  of 2012, Petrovich harassed and harangued Holmseth with behaviors no different  than a high school bully that singles out some unlucky kid for constant  torment.

But the harassment suddenly  accelerated and intensified in the summer of 2013. 

Holmseth began receiving stern warning  from Petrovich. The heavy-handed communications began when Holmseth started  making document requests to the East Grand Forks Chief of Police. Holmseth was  requesting chain of custody information regarding the whereabouts of his  computer and hard-drive during the time it had been in police custody.

“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. 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 commonly cynically refers to Holmseth’s diligence, document requests, work  ethic, and publishing about law enforcement as his “computer”. The only  connection between Holmseth’s legal issues and his son are fictitious scenarios  fabricated by Petrovich.

        On January 1, 2013 Holmseth emailed  a letter to Polk County Sheriff Barb Erdman. He advised Erdman he possessed  irrefutable evidence that proves law enforcement and select officials tampered  with evidence while they had possession of his computer and hard-drive. He  advised Erdman that if she has an open investigation file he will provide her  the evidence; otherwise he will give it to the District Judge and FBI.  

Petrovich was copied on  Holmseth’s letter to Sheriff Erdman and he immediately responded to Holmseth:

“You are also doing  exactly what Ron Galstad argued about on Monday: piggybacking claims  and arguments of your choosing into files that have nothing to do with the  matter you are presenting. This has nothing to do with your family file. It  doesn’t even have anything to do with your criminal file. If they had used  something found on your hard drive as evidence against you, you could have  argued its admissibility based on a chain of custody issue, but that was never  the case.”

Petrovich himself had used the  Family Court forum to label Holmseth as paranoid and take an adverse action  against him based upon the false label. However – when evidence started pouring  in from sources like the BCA and sheriff’s reports that showed misconduct and criminal activity had actually  been taking place on the part of law enforcement, which proved Holmseth is not  paranoid, Petrovich contacted Holmseth and chastised him, saying it is not part  of the family case file.

Petrovich is a person that appears to have no meanignful relationship with the law, truth, or morals.

A careful look at the  aforementioned quote by Petrovich places his lawless contempt for ‘process’ and  ‘procedure’ and ‘truth’ on display.

Petrovich said, “If they had used something found  on your hard drive as evidence against you, you could have argued its  admissibility based on a chain of custody issue, but that was never the case”. 

“Had the search of your hard drive been improper  and they used the contents of the drive as evidence against you, you could have  argued about the admissibility of it. But that is a moot point since that never  happened,” Petrovich said.

Petrovich said an improper search of the hard-drive is a  “moot point”. He blatantly declares he believes  that illegal activity by government officials is okay. His assessment is akin  to saying a bank robber didn’t do anything wrong, because after he pointed his  gun at the teller and demanded all the money; the bank vault was under control  of a time-lock; so the robber fled without shooting anybody.

Petrovich’s supervisor, Traci  Kapella, attended a court hearing to monitor Petrovich after Holmseth alerted  the Minnesota Attorney General to the rampant violations occurring. Kapella  states she is still reviewing the large amount documentation she received from  Holmseth.

Many fear the pattern and  practice of child exploitation by corrupt government officials that hold  children ransom through the Family Court could become an epidemic in the United States.

The fact that Holmseth was  interviewed by the Minneapolis FBI and turned over evidence about an  international human trafficking operation is also causing serious concerns  about the activities of Petrovich.

Through Holmseth’s probing and  investigation, it was learned that Petrovich was not reporting all of his  telephonic contact to the Judge in his reports. In fact, Petrovich was  discussing Holmseth with out-of-state individuals from the South – ‘off the  record’. Records show Petrovich shares the same out of state contacts as  Galstad and Lt. Rodney Hajicek.

The official position of the  Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem program is not yet clear.

However – one thing is certainly clear.

Petrovich is not concerned the police illegally searched  Holmseth’s hard-drive without a warrant. He is not concerned the police had  Holmseth’s hard-drive for three and a half months and kept no chain of evidence  documentation. He is not concerned the police used BCA labels to hold items  seized from Holmseth, and the BCA later stated they knew nothing about it and  had no involvement whatsoever. He is not concerned Ronald Galstad told the  Judge he was communicating with the BCA about needing another search warrant –  another fallacy disavowed by the BCA. He is not concerned that the hard-drive,  which is evidence in several cases; was returned inoperable.

Petrovich is concerned that  Holmseth is talking about it. Petrovich believes Holmseth has a mental problem for bringing it up.

Perhaps the most profound statement describing Petrovich’s  involvement in HOLMSETH VS. CALLAHAN was made by the child’s play therapist  during a meeting with another therapist.   She said that never in her career had she seen a case where the guardian  ad litem was so deeply involved with the affairs of a family, where the child  is “safe in both homes”.

This is a developing story.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s