Contact Me

An attorney with the Minnesota Public Defender’s office representing an investigative journalist that interviewed suspects in the high profile kidnapping of HaLeigh Cummings, warned the former award-winning news reporter there was a plan to have him put in St. Cloud State Prison if he didn’t accept a no-contest plea being offered by East Grand Forks City Attorney Ronald Galstad.

This and other testimony was taken on December 17, 2014, by the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois at the federal courthouse in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, where preliminary motions were heard regarding Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al.

Holmseth told the judge that on October 29, 2012, Michael LaCoursiere warned him that if he was in prison he would never be able to see his kids, and the world would not find out what really happened to the missing child HaLeigh Cummings.

The 42-U.S.C.-1983 (Deprivation of Rights) lawsuit filed by Holmseth alleges multiple defendants conspired to deprive him of his Constitutional rights through a scheme that involved a domestic violence protection order, filed by a media contact he never personally met, which was fraudulently obtained in a Florida divorce court, to retroactively order the removal of lawfully published content – including the book Holmseth wrote about his interviews.

Holmseth told Judge Brisbois that LaCoursiere abruptly changed their plan to go to trial on October 29, 2012, based upon information LaCoursiere just received that officers with the East Grand Forks Police and Polk County Sheriff’s Office were going to lie on the witness stand.

Alethea Huyser, the attorney representing LaCoursiere on behalf of the Minnesota Attorney General’s office expressed surprise during the hearing to learn that persons in Florida threatened to murder Holmseth if he attended the original court hearing in Broward County where the domestic violence protection order was obtained.

Testimony and documents show Detective Rodney Hajicek, East Grand Forks Police Department, was fully aware a special meeting was held in Florida to discuss the “Timothy Holmseth” problem. The meeting involved a Mini-14 assault carbine rifle that was brandished as the gun that was going to be used to kill “Timothy Holmseth”.

Hajicek, a defendant in the lawsuit, is known to have taken no action whatsoever regarding the death threats against Holmseth. Case files and public records show Hajicek and EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad were in direct communication with those handling the gun and making the threats.

Attorney Huyser argued that LaCoursiere is not subject to lawsuit under 42-U.S.C.-1983 as a matter of law and is protected by Judicial Immunity. Huyser claimed Holmseth’s claims fall under malpractice, which is covered by immunity.

Holmseth argued that LaCoursiere is not covered by immunity because LaCoursiere was actively engaged in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to protect an existing criminal enterprise with his long-time friend, Ronald Galstad. 

Holmseth described the utterly bizarre scene, minutes before jury selection was supposed to take place on October 29, 2012, when LaCoursiere asked Holmseth’s teenage daughter if she knew Ronald Galstad’s daughter. After Holmseth’s daughter confirmed the two girls were in the same high school class, LaCoursiere leaned back in his chair with a nostalgic smile and said he remembered when Ronald Galstad’s daughter was born, and began recalling college-day memories between the two.     

“[Section 241 – Title 18] Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime,” Holmseth said, reading the federal statute in court.  

Holmseth argued his First Amendment protections ended then and there, and that rule and case law dictates that a federal crime is “never a judicial act” and LaCoursiere should be arrested by the FBI.

Holmseth argued to the court that LaCoursiere was assisting Ronald Galstad, in effort to insulate Ronald Galstad from exposure and prosecution regarding his involvement in the Boardwalk Enterprises money-laundering scandal, which broke in the Grand Forks Herald on April 30, 2014, shortly after Holmseth reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor.

After hearing Holmseth’s oral argument regarding LaCoursiere, Attorney Huyser submitted a brief rebuttal and stated LaCoursiere formally denies Holmseth’s representations of what took place in the October 29, 2012 meeting. It was the first time LaCoursiere ever denied doing or saying the things he is accused of doing and saying in Holmseth’s formal complaint.  

Judge Brisbois asked Nathan Midolo, an attorney with the law firm Iverson Reuvers Condon, representing the City of East Grand Forks, to describe the employment status of Ronald Galstad. Midolo said Ronald Galstad is a contract employee that works part-time for the City of EGF.

The City of EGF is not providing legal representation for Ronald Galstad in Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al.

The employment status of Ronald Galstad is significant.

Holmseth presented evidence to the court that on May 7, 2014, a closed meeting was held at the private law office of Galstad, Jensen, and McCann between EGF city officials and members of Boardwalk Enterprises and their attorney. All available evidence indicates Ronald Galstad was the only attorney present at the official meeting and was the attorney for both the City of EGF and Boardwalk Enterprises at the same time.

Alternatively – the secrecy behind the closed May 7, 2014, meeting could imply Ronald Galstad is a member of the Boardwalk Enterprises ownership group. Either scenario would implicate Ronald Galstad and other EGF City officials in the money-laundering loan-fraud scheme.

Daniel Dunn, the attorney for Ronald Galstad, told the judge Holmseth's lawsuit is "mis-directed".

Judge Brisbois has taken all matters under advisement.

Return to Home Page