Contact Me

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 – 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. 

Return to Home Page