HOLMSETH VS. CALLAHAN closely resembles the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case – NEAR VS. MINNESOTA
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
Minnesota District Judge Tamara Yon spoke candidly from the bench during a hearing at the Polk County Justice Center in Crookston yesterday.
The Judge said she had never in her career handled a case like HOLMSETH VS. CALLAHAN. The case is filed in the Family Court of the Ninth Minnesota District under the “Custody” classification.
It’s anything but.
The case closely resembles the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Near vs. Minnesota.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of “malicious” or “scandalous” newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment).
Attempts to apply prior restraints to Holmseth’s publication are being made in the Minnesota Family Court.
Attorney Michael Mattocks, Charlson & Jorgenson, attorney for Rhonda Callahan, argued that Timothy Holmseth should not be able to write about the Family Court case on his website.
But the request is a gross over-simplification of the facts.
Holmseth is an established award-winning newspaper reporter and investigative author. In 2011 he published a book about a missing child from Florida named HaLeigh Ann-Marie Cummings.
Holmseth was interviewed in 2010 by the Minneapolis FBI regarding interviews he conducted with suspects in the child’s kidnapping. The FBI requested copies of some of his recorded interviews.
Documents on record with the Minnesota Court prove his child’s mother, Rhonda Callahan, was in considerable communication with the exact same people whose voices appear on the FBI tapes.
Emails in the court file show Callahan colluded with law enforcement’s suspects in the HaLeigh Cummings kidnapping to file bogus child protection complaints against Holmseth, only days after he interviewed those people.
An example of the many phone calls Holmseth received was submitted as evidence to the Court. The audio demonstrated there was a plan as early as 2011 to tamper with Holmseth’s parental rights if he didn’t shut up about the kidnapping.
Most disturbing is the person talking into a voice changer warned Holmseth that “CPS” and “States Attorneys” were going to come after him if he didn’t “stop it”.
Holmseth argued to the Court that he is not writing about his child, per say – he is directly confronting the actions of corrupt public officials and addressing the illegal tactic of ‘using’ a journalist’s child in an effort to silence him.
Holmseth argued the judicial system already has remedies set up for any person grieved by his publication, and the Civil Court is available to any party or person that wants to sue him.
During the Court proceeding, Mattocks lamented that Holmseth wrote something unflattering about the guardian ad litem, Matthew Petrovich.
Holmseth looked at Petrovich and said “sue me”.
Mattocks then lamented that if Petrovich sued Holmseth; Holmseth would write “thirty stories” about that.
But lawsuits never happen.
Instead – Callahan is used over and over to file ‘proxy motions’ in the Family Court to avoid depositions and Discovery of evidence.
Emails show Callahan sent information about Holmseth to Nancy Grace’s journalist Art Harris and others. In the email she asks Harris and his colleagues to remove her name if they use it for anything.
And thus – the perplexing conundrum Honorable Yon must confront.
The Court has received no evidence linking Timothy’s Holmseth profession and website to his child.
The use of a child to intimidate a federal witness and suppress the First Amendment rights of a journalist is a federal crime and psychological child abuse.