Tagged: Drunken Noodle

Boardwalk Enterprises and City of EGF reported to Department of Justice – National Department For Disaster Fraud

by Timothy Charles Holmseth

The activities of the Boardwalk Enterprises/EDHA/EGF loan fraud money laundering scheme have been reported to the Department of Justice.

The Complaint reads in part:

East Grand Forks city employees and elected leaders are using their positions to steal government money and enrich themselves. The flow of funds originated from state and federal disaster relief that came as result of the historic flooding of the Red River in 1997.

I reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor on December 8, 2013, and requested an audit. At some point an audit was called for. On April 30, 2014, the Grand Forks Herald reported ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.

The fraud was connected to a group of local officials including the mayor, city attorney, EDHA director, and several others.

Attempts to cover up the fraud and organized criminal activity were made by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and East Grand Forks Police Department. see above-mentioned lawsuit

The fraud involves a company called Boardwalk Enterprises LLP that borrowed over half a million dollars. Annual payments of $30,000 were supposed to begin in 2003 but never did. Not a single payment was ever made and the mortgage was never filed. Virtually all traces of the loan disappeared from the record. Neither the lender nor the loaner said anything.

On May 7, 2014, local officials held an official (closed) meeting with representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises and their (Boardwalk’s) attorney to discuss a ‘solution’ to the unpaid loan problem.

The May 7, 2014, meeting was suspicious because it was held at the private office of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad (Galstad, Jensen, & McCann).

On May 7, 2014, EGF city administrator David Murphy told WDAZ news that city officials met with representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises and their “attorney”. However – to this very day – Murphy and city officials will not disclose who Boardwalk Enterprises’ attorney was on May 7, 2014.

Advertisements

Email to Judge reveals public defender suspected EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad of Constitutional rights violations regarding seized hard-drive

EGF City Council and EDHA Board members focus of suspicion for involvement in money-laundering scheme 

by Timothy Charles Holmseth

Michael LaCoursiere, Minnesota Public Defender’s Office, believed something was amiss with the actions of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad shortly after the East Grand Forks Police Department abruptly seized the hard-drive and journalism equipment of Timothy Charles Holmseth.

Documents recently obtained from Public Defender supervisor Kip Fontaine contained email exchanges between LaCoursiere, Galstad, and Judge Tamara Yon.

LaCoursiere stated his concerns in a December 19, 2012, email to Judge Tamara Yon and Ronald Galstad.

“A search warrant was also executed and property of Mr. Holmseth has been seized since our last hearing. I am going to ask for a continuance to review the Search and the Warrant and time to make the proper objections if Mr. Holmseth’s constitutional rights have been violated. Springing all these new request and executing a search warrant on the eve of our hearing is like Trial by ambush,” LaCoursiere said.

The email communication was initiated by Galstad, who was desperately trying to convince the Judge his witness should not be required to appear in person, but rather, be able to appear from out of state via ITV. The email contained three full pages of case law and legal opinion why Holmseth did not have a right to face his accuser.

“[The State’s witness] is in [another State] and the expense of the judicial economy would dictate that the efficiencies of ITV would serve justice in this matter,” Galstad said.

Galstad’s reference to the “expense of the judicial economy” creates serious questions about previous statements he made to the Court on October 29, 2012, when a Jury Trial was scheduled for Holmseth.

On October 29, 2012, upon a (coerced) Alford plea, Judge Yon asked Galstad, “So you’re not asking, for example, [for Timothy Holmseth] to pay plane tickets or anything like that?”

Galstad replied, “No”.

Judge Yon’s question to Galstad clearly indicates the Court believed the State had a witness present to testify before the agreement was reached.

In 2014, Holmseth requested the City of EGF produce Accounts Payable records to demonstrate that the City paid travel expenses for their out-of-state witness to testify on October 29, 2012.

EGF City Attorney David Murphy reported to Holmseth that an investigation found no records of any such expenses ever being paid out.

RONALD GALSTAD AND TIMOTHY HOLMSETH’S CHILD
During the exact same time period that Ronald Galstad was suspected of violating Holmseth’s Constitutional rights, he was actively involving himself with Holmseth’s parental rights via a Thief River Falls law firm, Charlson-Jorgenson.

The evidence shows Galstad to be a man obsessed with a local journalist.

On December 18, 2012, a review hearing was held in Roseau County Family Court where Timothy Holmseth was defending against the latest batch of accusations made against him by his child’s mother, Rhonda Callahan, and Matthew Petrovich, guardian ad litem.

Callahan, legally represented by Michael Mattocks, Charlson-Jorgenson, was again attempting to suspend Holmseth’s parental rights.

Emails and courtroom testimony show Callahan had been sending information about Holmseth to kidnapping suspects in Florida, who were then publishing it on the Web. Callahan and Michael Jorgenson were also coordinating (false) CPS complaints and nuisance calls to the police with the kidnapping suspects in Florida.

Callahan had been communicating with Galstad’s witness since 2009, after Holmseth interviewed law enforcement’s suspects in the kidnapping of HaLeigh Ann-Marie Cummings.

RONALD GALSTAD AND MICHAEL MATTOCKS
During the December 18, 2012 hearing a nexus was made between Galstad and Charlson-Jorgenson Law Office when Mattocks told Judge Donna Dixon that he had spoken to EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad and been advised that Holmseth’s Stay of Execution had been revoked and Holmseth was in trouble with the law.

RONALD GALSTAD AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM MATTHEW PETROVICH
In the summer of 2013, Matthew Petrovich emailed Timothy Holmseth and told him he had been reading his website – http://www.writeintoaction.com. Holmseth had been publishing articles exposing local officials, including Galstad, for corrupt activities.  Petrovich told Holmseth he needed to stay off his computer and start thinking about what was important to him.

Holmseth continued to report to the public what local officials were doing.

In the fall of 2013, Callahan ands her lawyer (Mattocks) filed a Motion to the Court alleging Holmseth was “delusional” and psychologically harming their son. Attached as supporting exhibits to Callahan’s Motion was printed out articles from Holmseth’s website regarding corrupt local officials and law enforcement. Callahan also filed an Affidavit that made no less than seven references to Holmseth’s ‘delusional’ ‘theories’ about the kidnapping of HaLeigh Cummings.

Petrovich quickly supported Callahan’s Motion by submitting a Guardian’s report asserting Holmseth was “paranoid” and recommended Holmseth see his son under supervision only. During a subsequent hearing, Petrovich supported his assertion that Holmseth was paranoid by lamenting to the Court that Holmseth had filed a complaint against “Ronald Galstad”.

In December of 2013, Dr. Madaline Barnes PhD performed a parental capacity/psychological examination of Holmseth and determined he was a good and loving parent; mentally healthy; posed no threat to his son; was not delusional; and his parenting-time should be re-instated. It was the third psychological test Holmseth had taken and passed (he passed every test he ever took).

Despite Holmseth passing the parental capacity tests – Callahan, Mattocks, and Petrovich continued their siege against Holmseth.

During this time, Callahan was investigated by Grand Forks CPS and a plan was developed for her due to some parenting issues that needed to be addressed.

Holmseth has never been found to be insufficient as a parent in any way by CPS; or by any final judgment of a Court.

At Family Court hearings on March 3, and May 20, 2014, Petrovich, Callahan, and Mattocks, argued to the Court that restrictions should be placed on Holmseth’s parenting-time, and argued he should be restricted from writing stories (about corrupt government officials) on his computer if he is to have custody of his son.

BOARDWALK ENTERPRISES
During the May 20, 2014, court hearing, Timothy Holmseth lifted a copy of the April 30, 2014, edition of the Grand Forks Herald. The headline read ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.

The headline decimated the argument that Holmseth was delusional about local corruption and created serious questions about the perpetual defamation against Holmseth by Galstad, Mattocks, Petrovich, and Callahan.

Holmseth argued to Judge Yon at a prior hearing that if a reporter at the Fargo Forum or Grand Forks Herald had reported corruption they would not be labeled delusional or have their child taken from them.

The Boardwalk Enterprises loan fraud money laundering scheme was exposed as result of an audit.

However…

In December of 2013, Timothy Holmseth reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor and requested an audit.

JUDGE YON ENTERS RULING
On August 12, 2014, Judge Tamara Yon denied all requests for un-constitutional restrictions on Holmseth’s publication; dismissed Matthew Petrovich as guardian ad litem; did not assign another GAL – rather, a Third Party Neutral that specializes in cases with high-conflict between the parents.

BOARDWALK ENTERPRISES AND TAXPAYER FUNDS
Galstad is presently under deep scrutiny regarding his role in the Boardwalk Enterprises loan fraud money laundering scheme.

Many suspect Ronald Galstad was the attorney for both Boardwalk Enterprises and the City of EGF during an official public meeting held on May 7, 2014, at Galstad’s private law office. Questions also exist about Galstad possibly being a member of the Boardwalk Enterprises ownership group.

Questions are mounting regarding the use of taxpayer money to pay:

  • Legal expenses for the dead end malicious prosecution of Timothy Holmseth
  • Legal expenses to protect EGF city officials and elected leaders involved in the Boardwalk Enterprises money laundering scheme
  • Legal expenses to defend corrupt Defendants named in Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al

MONEY LAUNDERING SCHEME
Many taxpayers believe members of the EGF city council and EDHA board are either directly involved or criminally complacent in the Boardwalk Enterprises loan fraud money laundering scheme.

EGF city council violating Minnesota open meeting law to cover-up of Boardwalk Enterprises money-laundering scheme?

by Timothy Charles Holmseth

Elected officials in East Grand Forks, Minnesota face increased scrutiny in what appears to be a cover-up of serious criminal activity involving loan fraud and money-laundering. 

On June 3, 2014, the Grand Forks Herald reported the EGF city council voted to hire an outside attorney, Fargo-based lawyer Brad Sinclair, to handle affairs surrounding an unpaid $510,000 loan made to Boardwalk Enterprises.

“City Administrator David Murphy said the idea was brought to him by a couple of city council members,” the Herald reported.

The news report does not name the Council members that conferred with Murphy; nor does it state where they met.

MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW
Minnesota State Statutes 13D.04 – NOTICE OF MEETINGS – sets forth clear laws and regulations regarding when and how elected officials and government can meet and/or hold a meeting.

There is no indication the public was noticed that Murphy was meeting with members of the EGF City Council to discuss Boardwalk Enterprises. However, according to Murphy, discussions from the meeting ultimately resulted in a vote being taken by the City Council regarding City Attorney Ronald Galstad and Boardwalk Enterprises.

VOTING TO HIRE THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY
The June 3, 2014, EGF City Council meeting agenda, which was emailed to the public on May 30, does not contain any information whatsoever regarding City Attorney Ronald Galstad or the proposed hiring of an outside attorney to handle the unpaid Boardwalk loan.

But a vote did take place.

The city council voted to hire Fargo-based attorney Brad Sinclair on June 3, 2014, and he officially began that role on June 4, 2014. That would mean Attorney Sinclair must have been contacted prior to the June 3, vote and was prepared to represent EGF if the council voted to do so.

EARLY INDICATIONS OF COVER-UP
On April 30, 2014, the Herald reported ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.

On May 7, 2014, David Murphy, administrator, City of EGF, told WDAZ that city officials met with “representatives” of “Boardwalk Enterprises” and their “attorney”.

As of today’s date, the City of EGF will still not disclose the identity of the attorney that was representing Boardwalk Enterprises at the May 7, 2014, meeting. The meeting was held at the private office of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad (as opposed to EGF City Hall).

Likewise, EGF officials will not disclose whether or not the City’s actual attorney on May 7, 2014 – Ronald Galstad – was actually representing the City at the meeting.

Many are beginning to speculate that Galstad was actually representing Boardwalk Enterprises at the meeting (hence – the meeting was held at Galstad’s private office).

If Galstad was Boardwalk’s lawyer on May 7, 2014; EGF city officials could face criminal investigation themselves for actively covering up a series of felonies and organized crime.

Here’s why.

On May 27, 2014, Galstad gave a presentation to the EGF EDHA board during a public meeting. He gave a summary rundown of what his internal investigation had determined thus far regarding the un-paid loan. Galstad investigated the Boardwalk issue by scouring through all the files. Crucial documentation regarding the loan simply did not exist – as if all traces of the loan had simply disappeared.

If Galstad was Boardwalk Enterprises attorney at the May 7, 2014, meeting, that means EGF officials allowed Boardwalk Enterprises full and un-fettered access to scour (sanitize) the files until June 3, 2014, when they finally replaced Galstad.

And – it appears city officials did in fact believe/know something was amiss.

On June 3, WDAZ reported the City Council voted to hire Fargo-based attorney Brad Sinclair to represent EGF regarding the unpaid loan. Sinclair replaced Galstad for purposes of the ‘Boardwalk’ issue. “This is just for removing any questions of conflict of interest or just to get a neutral third party to look at it.” Murphy said.

Murphy has never expanded upon why he and the un-named City Council members believed Galstad might have a “conflict of interest” or may not be “neutral” regarding the issue.

Murphy and other would be required to answer these questions to state or federal investigators; or under deposition.

Boardwalk Enterprises fraud cover-up underway

EGF City Council allowed City Attorney unfettered access to files even after they observed possible “conflict of interest”

by Timothy Charles Holmseth

Brad Sinclair, the Fargo-based attorney hired by the City of East Grand Forks to represent the City’s interests in the ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ unpaid loan scandal, says he is not going to disclose the name of the attorney that represented Boardwalk at the May 7, 2014, closed-door session, which was held at the law office of (Ronald) Galstad, Jensen, and McCann.

Sinclair deferred the question to Jon Iverson, the Bloomington-based attorney representing EGF in the civil rights lawsuit ‘Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al.’

Sinclair was hired to represent the interests of the City of EGF. However, it appears he is actually representing the individual interests of only a few officials that are seeking to avoid criminal prosecution.

On May 7, 2014, David Murphy, administrator, City of EGF, told WDAZ that city officials met with “representatives” of “Boardwalk Enterprises” and their “attorney”.

Murphy clearly stated that city officials met with an “attorney” representing ‘Boardwalk’ at the meeting. However, Sinclair now refuses to identify who that attorney was.

Timeline

On April 30, 2014, the Herald reported ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.

On May 2, WDAZ reported that records with Polk County linked Dan Stauss, the brother of EGF Mayor Lynn Stauss, to Boardwalk Enterprises.

On May 7, city officials met with representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises at the private office of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad in a closed door meeting. Murphy told WDAZ that ‘Boardwalk’s’ attorney was present – but did not name the attorney.

On May 21, James Richter, the director of EHDA that signed the loan in question, retired.

On May 27, Boardwalk Enterprises requested all documents the City of EGF possessed regarding the un-paid $510,000 loan.

On May 27, Galstad gave a presentation to the EGF EDHA board during a public meeting. He gave a summary rundown of what his internal investigation had determined thus far regarding the un-paid loan. The fact-pattern exposed through Galstad’s presentation created enormous questions, because files showed crucial documentation regarding the loan simply did not exist – as if all traces of the loan had simply disappeared.

On June 3, WDAZ reported the City Council voted to hire Sinclair to represent EGF regarding the unpaid loan. Sinclair replaced Galstad for purposes of the ‘Boardwalk’ issue. “This is just for removing any questions of conflict of interest or just to get a neutral third party to look at it.” Murphy said.

Murphy has never expanded upon why Galstad might have a “conflict of interest” or may not be “neutral” regarding the issue. It is also not readily clear why the May 7, 2014 meeting was held at the private office of Galstad.

It is notable that Murphy and the City Council allowed Galstad to represent the City on the ‘Boardwalk’ issue in the beginning – and despite believing there was a conflict of interest – Galstad continued to represent the City through approximately June 3.

On June 11, 2014, the Herald reported “[Brad] Sinclair, an attorney at Kaler-Doeling who the City Council voted to hire last week, will also serve Boardwalk Enterprises with a request for a response. That will include a request for information on who the partners in the company are, and who is their legal representation.”

An announcement to the media that Sinclair would be asking ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ the name of their legal representation creates questions, because EGF city officials met with the ‘Boardwalk’ attorney on May 7, 2014.

Why Sinclair would believe ‘Boardwalk’s’ attorney had changed between May 7, 2014, and June 11, 2014, is not clear.

But perhaps Sinclair had reason to believe that.

On August 1, the Herald reported that Boardwalk Enterprises had been served with a loan default notice. The report noted the Herald had been provided a letter from Murphy that indicated Boardwalk’s attorney was Vogel Law Firm, Fargo.

However – when Sinclair was asked on August 8, 2014, to clarify the name of the attorney that Murphy was referring to during the May 7 interview with WDAZ, he refused to answer the question and deferred it to Jon Iverson.

Why would Sinclair defer such a simple question to a lawyer representing the City in a civil rights lawsuit?

Questions are mounting for why the City of EGF and their attorney (Sinclair) would readily release on August 1, 2014, that Vogel Law Firm is representing ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ – but – refuse to clarify the name of the attorney that was representing ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ on May 7, 2014.

Clues to a Shell Game

The EGF City Council’s decision to replace Ronald Galstad with Brad Sinclair to avoid “conflict of interest” issues and obtain a “neutral third party” is a strong indicator that city officials knew/know exactly what is going on.

The un-politically correct interpretation of the Council’s decision to replace Galstad is that he has a conflict of interest and is not neutral in the un-paid loan issue surrounding ‘Boardwalk’.

However – if Galstad had/has a conflict of interest – that conflict of interest existed at the May 7, 2014, meeting between the City of EGF and ‘Boardwalk’. Yet – Galstad was subsequently allowed complete and unfettered access to all the files; conducted an investigation; and provided the EDHA Board a presentation of the known facts on May 27; until he was finally replaced on June 3, 2014.

If a subsequent investigation reveals that Galstad had a ‘conflict of interest’ – that fact implicates every member of the EGF City Council, EDHA Board, and/or city staff that was aware of the conflict, because leaving Galstad in place may have been an illegal effort to allow Galstad enough time to sanitize the files; before his replacement was forced by public outcry.

Keeping the Facts Fluid – Sanitization

The Herald reported on April 30, 2014, that Galstad said he wasn’t sure of the current make-up of the ownership group, but had been in contact with “Dan Stauss”. Dan Stauss is an owner of the Boardwalk building, and is the brother of EGF Mayor Lynn Stauss.

The fact that Galstad made a point to tell the news reporter he did not know the ‘current make-up of the ownership group’ is a clue that indicates the ‘ownership group’ is a fluid concept to those involved – always subject to change – based upon whatever evidence exists against the group.

That’s why ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ requested the entire file on record with the City regarding the loan.

It is very significant that ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ had an “attorney” on May 7, yet the mystery attorney did not request all the documents in the possession of the City until May 27, which was the exact same day Galstad completed his entire scouring of the files in preparation for his official presentation.

During Galstad’s presentation at the May 27, 2014, EDHA meeting, he made sure to point out that many changes took place along the way.

“In the original discussions it was always DJ Parker Inc. Then it would have been on June 16, 1999, when they were negotiating the Construction Agreement, and the Development Agreement, Mr. Parker at that time, it appears, formed a new company Boardwalk Enterprises LLP – and that company was inserted into the agreement and he signed off on it as the managing partner in October of 1999,” Galstad said.

The Herald reported on April 30, 2014, that Galstad said the management of the company has changed since the loan was originally made in 1999.

The objective of a shell game is to confuse the observer to the point they can no longer remember what shell the peanut is under.

However – to the experienced eye – Galstad may have actually explained how the scheme worked. It was simply a shell game of changes until the $510,000 loan vanished from record and memory.

Consider the following: “In fact [the mortgage] did not get filed – and, and so there are – there is some – you know – so when it was re-financed – so when Boardwalk re-financed through the number of years – because the mortgage wasn’t filed – the loan didn’t get picked up by anybody else – so if I was the Title Examiner I would have picked it up if there would have been a mortgage attached to it – since it wasn’t filed it just didn’t get picked up when it was re-financed through a couple of different times through,” Galstad said.

An EDHA board member asked the obvious question. “Wouldn’t that be caught in an audit? In the handy old deal by the accounting firm that does the City annual (audit)?”

Murphy answered the question. “Yes, if there is a record of it. However it didn’t show up on any – it wasn’t showing in any of our loan reports – didn’t show in any of the minutes. Unless they had some specific knowledge of it they wouldn’t have noticed anything to catch that,” he said.

May 7, 2014 meeting / shell game

Remember, the objective of a shell game is to confuse the observer to the point they can no longer remember what shell the peanut is under.

The same logic applies with the fact Murphy told WDAZ that city officials met with ‘Boardwalks’ attorney on May 7, 2014.

Following that ‘closed’ meeting – the City Council voted to bring a new attorney on board. They then announced, through the media, that the new attorney would be asking ‘Boardwalk’ who their attorney is.

After several months passed – the City announced that ‘Boardwalk’s’ attorney is Vogel Law Firm.

By this time the public has forgotten about Murphy’s statement on May 7 and will simply associate ‘Boardwalk’ with Vogel Law Firm.

It’s a parlor trick.

But – the parlor trick is not being performed by ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’ – it is being done by Sinclair and the City of EGF to the express benefit of ‘Boardwalk Enterprises’.

If a crime has taken place – Sinclair and select city officials are becoming involved.

Criminal fraud

It is not possible the EGF City Council, EDHA board, city staff, Administrator Murphy, or Attorney Sinclair did not believe they had witnessed a crime when they encountered the $510,000 loan fraud scandal.

However – as of August 1, 2014, the only indication of legal action being initiated by the City or Sinclair is the service of a loan default notice.

Evidence of cover-up by City Administrator

There is evidence that David Murphy actively attempted to cover for the illegal conduct of James Richter.

At a time somewhere between January – April, 2014, James Richter instructed Kim Nelson, a housing specialist for HUD, to ignore an address verification request she received from the United States Department of Commerce regarding an employment background check being done on Timothy Charles Holmseth for a job he had working in a federal facility.

Richter instructed Nelson to “shred” the document without responding to it.

Holmseth is an investigative reporter and author that had reported city officials and other members of the 9th judicial district to authorities for corrupt practices.

In December of 2013, Holmseth reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor and requested an audit.

Holmseth filed a formal complaint regarding Richter’s targeted act against him regarding his federal background check for employment. Murphy subsequently conducted interviews and in June, 2014, concluded that Richter did in fact instruct Nelson to shred the federal document.

Nelson said Richter was nervous because the letter involving ‘Timothy Holmseth’ came from a federal agency.

However, Murphy concluded that the document was shredded in “error”. The assertion that an intentional and directed malicious act was an “error” is preposterous and shows Richter was being protected by the City even after he retired.