Attorney for City of East Grand Forks files Memorandum to federal court that conflicts with State court’s findings
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
The issuance of a Protective Order by a Minnesota state judge may have serious ramifications for the Defendants named in Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al.
The Protective Order was issued only two days after Iverson Reuvers Condon, the law firm representing the City of East Grand Forks in a civil right lawsuit, filed a Memorandum to the federal court, and made claims that would soon be exposed as entirely inconsistent with the basis of the State’s Protective Order granted to Timothy Charles Holmseth.
The protection that was granted to Holmseth after extensive arguments were heard by the Court, exposes the City of East Grand Forks’ false narrative against Holmseth.
On September 19, 2014, State District Judge Tamara Yon issued a Protective Order that puts into place Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure restrictions regarding Holmseth’s sensitive documents and financial records.
The Order specifically notes that it applies to Holmseth’s federal litigation against the City of East Grand Forks.
Only two days earlier, the City of East Grand Forks Defendants and attorneys were busy building a bogus defense – that would collide with the State court’s findings.
On September 17, Nathan C. Midolo, Iverson Reuvers Condon, filed a Memorandum to the federal court regarding the pending civil rights lawsuit. However, the facts and circumstances that led to the Protective Order, completely conflict with Midolo’s argument, position, and narrative.
The Protective Order clearly shows Holmseth, a legitimate, award-winning journalist, author, and witness in a federal kidnapping, has been a perpetual victim for several years, and required protection by the Court.
The City doubled down on its Color of Law – civil rights violations and chose to describe Holmseth as a perpetrator as their defense – an impossible scenario.