Washington D.C. trial attorney that defeated Edward Snowden’s lawyer describes parallels to Florida court order against Minnesota journalist – says Shaquille O’Neal case proves journalist will win

By Timothy Charles Holmseth on July 24, 2018 at 10:34 A.M. CST

Can a county court issue a retraining order that forbids a person from ever talking ABOUT, another person; and forbid making even an “indirect reference” to a person; if using electronic communications?

Can a court essentially order – don’t think about it or you might talk about it – and if you talk about it with anybody you will go jail.

That’s what happened to Timothy Charles Holmseth, a Minnesota journalists who uncovered an international child sex trafficking operation and found himself accused of “stalking” in Broward County Family Court after he began to publish his work product.

The Broward order was then used as a springboard by police in Minnesota during a failed plot to frame Holmseth for kidnapping, rape, and murder - akin to the Steven Avery case.

Steven S. Biss, a trial attorney in the Washington D.C. area represents Holmseth in a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit and says the Broward order violates Holmseth’s First Amendment rights.

Biss said he knows first-hand how false allegations of stalking are weaponized.

Biss tangled with, and defeated, high profile national security attorney Jesselyn Radack, the lawyer that represented Edward Snowden, after Radack tried the same tactic on him.

Attorney Jesselyn Radack

“I represent a guy named Trevor Fitzgibbon. Trevor Fitzgibbon is suing a lawyer in the District of Columbia who is a very famous whistleblower lawyer by the name of Jesselyn Radack,” Biss said.

Edward Snowden

The technique that she used is very similar to the one [used against you], Biss said.

Biss explained that he filed a lawsuit against Radack in the Eastern District of Virginia. “She then filed a Petition in D.C. alleging that the filing of the lawsuit; and my publication of the lawsuit on the federal database; the PACER database; constituted stalking and constituted revenge porn,” Biss said.  

Biss said Radack claimed ‘revenge porn’ because included within the body of the formal complaint were selfies Radack sent to his client, Fitzgibbon, in an effort to seduce him to have an affair. “They’re the kind of selfies you would send somebody if you wanted to have an affair with them,” Biss said.

“We won on all those issues,” Biss noted.

Biss said the accusation of stalking made against Holmseth for publishing information on the internet is the same tactic.

In 2011, a Broward County domestic violence court judge, Michael Kaplan, heard a case filed against Holmseth, a Minnesota resident that had conducted hours of consensual recorded interviews with a high profile media lawyer from Florida.

Holmseth received a telephone call warning he would be killed and thrown into a swamp if he attended the hearing in Fort Lauderdale.

In Holmseth’s absence, Kaplan granted the petitioner an Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence under a Florida dating law called ‘Repeat Violence’.

The Order forced Holmseth to remove legally obtained interviews regarding a missing child case that he published on his website. It further ordered Holmseth never talk about the Petitioner again using electronic communications.

As the Order reads on the Broward County Clerk’s website: Petition for injunction for protection against repeat (after notice)-the respondent shall not make any direct or indirect reference about the petitioner on the internet or by use of electronic communication. The respondent shall remove all books, writings, videos, photos, recording and/or materials currently published on the internet about the petitioner forthwith’

Holmseth only knew the Petitioner over the phone per a mutual journalist/source media relationship, which went bad after Holmseth learned about fake adoptions and child porn of a missing child, reported it to the Florida Attorney General, and met with the FBI that had been using Holmseth's information.

The Broward case had no foundation in reality.  

Holmseth was never criminally charged in either Minnesota or Florida with anything involving violence, stalking, assault, or anything else. The Order was simply granted out of thin air by Kaplan.

Biss said Florida had no jurisdiction to begin with. “Your publication of information on the internet from Minnesota could not possibly give rise to personal jurisdiction,” he said.

“The best case in the world is Shaq O’Neal case,” Biss said.

Shaq O'Neal

Biss explained that O’Neal was sued in Michigan for publishing unflattering pictures of a guy on his (Shaq’s) Instagram account. “Shaq said ‘look I’ve never been to Michigan’” Biss said, explaining that O’Neal prevailed.

Holmseth told Biss he has been discussing defenses with Gretchen Handy, Handy Law Group. Handy is Holmseth's public defender in a criminal case filed against him in Polk County, Minnesota alleging he violated the Broward order by publishing court files on the Web.

“Motion to Dismiss because its violates the First Amendment because your entitled – you have an absolute right as part of the freedom of speech and freedom of press to report on these matters of public interest,” Biss said.

Holmseth’s case is without a doubt a matter of public interest, which is supported by audio recordings Holmseth entered into evidence in Polk County that captures operatives discussing child pornography of a missing child from Florida named HaLeigh Cummings, fake adoptions, and international baby sales.  

Judge Tamara Yon referred to Holmseth’s submissions as “significant evidence” in an order favorable to Holmseth.

“The whole proceeding violates the First Amendment,” Biss said.

“I’m telling you Tim you need to get that issue before the court up there,” Biss said.

“I will make an appearance up there,” Biss said, noting he would file an appeal for Holmseth if need be.

Holmseth made contact with Attorney Handy today.

From: Timothy Charles Holmseth [mailto:tholmseth@wiktel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 8:08 AM
To: 'Handy, Gretchen'
Cc: 'Fontaine, Kip O.'
Subject: In Re: Motion(s) To Dismiss
Timothy Charles Holmseth
320 17th Street N.W.
Unit # 17
East Grand Forks, MN
56721
www.writeintoaction.com
tholmseth@wiktel.com
218.773.1299

In Re: MOTION TO DISMISS

July 24, 2018

Gretchen Handy
Handy Law Group PLLC
4050 Garden View Drive, Suite 100
Grand Forks, ND 58201

I appreciated sitting down with you for a few minutes on July 19 at the Polk County Justice Center before the court hearing.

I was pleased to learn that you and your supervisor, Kip Fontaine, have developed a Motion to Dismiss the charges against me - based upon jurisdiction.

However, we did not have opportunity to discuss the glaring Constitutional nightmare presented by the Broward County Order which the police used to arrest me.

I am going to present you a legal question using ‘all caps’ to give the question the emphasis I believe our country’s Constitution and citizen’s deserve.  

UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - DOES A STATE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CONCEIEVABLE, TO ORDER A PERSON SHALL NEVER TALK ABOUT, OR EVEN MAKE AN “INDIRECT REFERENCE” ABOUT A SPECIFIC OTHER PERSON WHILE USING ANY FORM OF “ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION?”

1045. Definition—"Electronic Communication"
The definition of an "electronic communication" appears in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12). This form of communication was added to Title III by the 1986 Act to cover most forms of electronic communications existing today. It includes any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system.

I attempted to imagine a time or situation; even under the most unusual of circumstances; where a county level court would have the authority to apply perimeters around a person’s right to speak of, or refer to, another specific person – a psychological blackout.

I look forward to seeing your argument to dismiss the charges against me based upon the fact the order violates my Constitutional rights and would end freedom of speech in the United States.

Respectfully.
Timothy Charles Holmseth

Cc: Kip Fontaine

Go Back