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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
All eyes are on Kaler-Doeling.
The East Grand Forks City Council voted Tuesday to bring the Fargo-based law firm to assist in the City’s efforts to recover payments from a large economic development loan that has gone unpaid for more than a decade.
The Council voted to hire Brad Sinclair, an attorney at Kaler Doeling, PLLP.
City Administrator David Murphy said the idea was brought to him by a couple of City Council members.
Attorney Sinclair will be picking up where EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad left off on the EDHA loan investigation.
Galstad presented a basic timeline of events to the EDHA Board at May 27 meeting.
However – a close analysis of Galstad’s entire synopsis actually created new questions regarding what was occurring behind the scenes from 1999-2014.
It is widely hoped Attorney Sinclair will find answers to the following questions derived from Galstad’s May 27, 2014 narrative to the EDHA Board.
Statement: “In 2003 – June of 2003 – just prior to that in 2002 – Mr. Stauss, through Boardwalk Enterprises, LLP had received a, basically a tax delinquency notice, and it appears there must have been some discussion with Mr. Richter at that time,” Ronald Galstad said.
Analysis: Ronald Galstad did not elaborate on how he knew about the tax delinquency notice that Dan Stauss received. However – he knew Stauss received it, and said “it appears there must have been some discussion with Mr. Richter at that time”.
(Q) When and how did Ronald Galstad learn that Dan Stauss received a tax delinquency notice?
(Q) What did Roanld Galstad see or observe that caused him to say it “appears” there was “discussion” between Dan Stauss and Jim Richter?
* * * * *
Statement: “On June 3 of 2003 I sent a letter to Mr. Stauss amongst Gary Sander – the City Administrator – Mr. Richter – the Administrative Committee, because there was a project going on, on the Boardwalk – a paver project – and for some reason the Opp Construction hadn’t been paid a portion of that bill going to Boardwalk Enterprises so I asked that it be resolved or should we set up a meeting? … I tried to resolve it – it went to all the – it went to everybody that was the head of either the department – the City – or the engineering firm or the, uhhh, it appeared that it should have been resolved. But it looks like in that June date – that’s what triggered this discussion”.
Analysis: It is known Dan Stauss received a tax delinquency notice in 2002. It is also known Ronald Galstad sent a letter to a host of involved Parties in June of 2003.
(Q) What was Ronald Galstad doing in regards to the Boardwalk Enterprises loan between 2002 (when Dan Stauss received the tax delinquency notice) and June of 2003?
* * * * *
Statement: “I’ve also started trying to go through all the minutes of the Economic Development and Housing Authority – at this point I don’t see any other references to that loan – okay – on June 3 of 2003 I sent a letter to Mr. Stauss amongst Gary Sander – the City Administrator – Mr. Richter – the Administrative Committee, because there was a project going on, on the Boardwalk – a paver project – and for some reason the Opp Construction hadn’t been paid a portion of that bill going to Boardwalk Enterprises so I asked that it be resolved or should we set up a meeting? … I tried to resolve it – it went to all the – it went to everybody that was the head of either the department – the City – or the engineering firm or the, uhhh, it appeared that it should have been resolved. But it looks like in that June date – that’s what triggered this discussion”.
Analysis: Ronald Galstad does not state who contacted him about the paving project dispute. He does not state who brought that to his attention. His omission is suspicious. Nonetheless, the situation he attempts to solve would require him viewing the Developer’s Agreement.
(Q) Who contacted Ronald Galstad about the paving project dispute?
* * * * *
Statement: “In April of 2006 there was tax delinquencies that were going on because the building went into tax foreclosure – there was notices by the Polk County that went to Boardwalk Enterprises and Mr. Richter got involved at that time again and indicated there was a mistake in communication between the City and Mr. Stauss and the reason the taxes had not been paid in that five year time frame – there was actually a meeting in May of 2006 where Mr. Richter went in on behalf of the City and Mr. Stauss to the Polk County commission and requested the penalty and taxes be forgiven based upon the miscommunication. It appears from a newspaper article as well as the Minutes that the Polk County Commission at that time granted that request. There was a letter from the Auditor not too long after that the taxes that were owed were about $71,859.30,” Galstad said.
Analysis: Dan Stauss, Jim Richter, and Ronald Galstad all knew about the tax issue in 2002.
(Q) Why didn’t Ronald Galstad take measures to correct the problem?