Binder 8

CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 11 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETII
Plaintiff,
v. CIVI ACTION NO: 1.4-CV-2970

(DWF/LrB)
CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS. a
municipal entity in the state of JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Minnesota; RONALD GALSTAD, city
attorney for City of East Grand Forks,
in his official and individual capacity; PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED
BARB ERDMAN, Sheriff of Polk ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
County, Minnesota, in her official and
individual capacity; JAMES RICHTE&
director of Economic Development and
Housing Authority (retired), in his
official and individual capacity; Deprivation of Rights
MICHAEL IIEDLLIND, chief of police (42 U.S.C. - 1983)
for City of East Grand Forks, in his
official and individual capacity; DAVID CIVI RIGHTS
MURPIIY, administrator for the Cify of
East Grand Forks, in his official and
individual capacity; RODNEY
HAJICEK lieutenant detective at East
Grand Forks Police Department, in his
official and individual capacity; AEISSO
SCHRAGE, police officer at East Grand
Forks Police Department, in his official
and individual capacity; MICHAEL
LACOURSIERE, public defender for
MINNESOTA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S **Ru-l-)l\Fo
OFFICE, in his official and individual .i 1- ?0\\
qpf
capacity; JOHN DOE' in his/her official
and individual capacity; JEANETTE
RINGUETTE, administrative assistant
at the Grand Forks National Weather "'r-n'SS||g"t'g'i'Su*-
Service Office, in her official and
individual capacity; MICHAEL
NORLAIID, deputy at the Polk County
Sheriffs Office, in his official and
individual capacity;
Defendants.
,'lt it'lj': j^
|
'..L.
I
/:
SEP r0 20147,,
il ll. r_i:
;l'iiir 'r:)--"'i'jf
I. PLAINTIF'F'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Timothy Holmseth, hereby sues Defendants, CITY OF EAST GRAND '
FORKS; RONALD GALSTAD, in his official and individual capacity as EAST GRAND
FORKS CITY ATTORNEY; BARB ERDMAN, in her official and individual capacity as
Sheriff of Polk County, Minnesota; MICHAEL HEDLUND in his official and individual
capacity as EAST GRAND FORKS CHIEF OF POLICE; JAMES RICHTER in his
official and individual capacity as (former) DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY _ EAST GRAND FORKS; DAVID
MURPHY, inhis official and individual capacity as EAST GRAND FORKS CITY
ADMINISTRATOR; RODNEY HAJICEK in his official and individual capacity as
EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE OFFICER; AEISSO SCHRAGE, in his official and
individual capacity as EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE OFFICER; JEANNETTE
RINGUETTE, in her official and individual capacity; JOHN DOE in hisftrer ofEcial and
individual capacity; and MICHAEL NORLAND, a deputy at the Polk County SherifPs
Office in his official and individual capacity.
II. JURISDICTION
1. This is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. - 1983 and 42U.S.C. - 1981 seeking money
damages against Defendant(s) for committing acts, under color of law, with the
intent and for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffof rights secured under the
. Constitution and laws of the United States Bill of Rights, those being, but not
expressly limited to, the lt',2nd,4*, 6*, and 14ft Amendments, and retaliating
against Plaintifffor exercise of constitutionally protected speech; and for refusing
.. ' or neglecfing to prevent such deprivations and denials to Plaintiff.
2. This case arises under the United States Constitution and 42U.5.C. section 1983
and 42 U.S.C - 1981. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $ 1331.
3. Plaintiffbrings this action resulting from damages incurred as result ofbeing

targeted for rights violations by the Defendan(s).
4. This Court is the appropriate venue for this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C: - 1391,
because all Defendants are residents of the State in which the District is located.
UI. PARTIES
5. At all time relevant hereto, PlaintiffTIMOTHY HOLMSETH, has been a resident

of East Grand Forks. Minnesota.
6. Defendant, RONALD GALSTAD, at aIl times relevant hereto, was the. EAST
GRAND FORKS CITY ATTORNEY and aresident of Minnesota.
7.,'Defendant, BARB ERDMAN, atall times relevant hereto, was the POLK
COUNTY SHERIFF and aresident ofMinnesota.
8. Defendant, MICHAEL NORLAND , at alltimes relevant hereto, was a Polk

County Deputy, and a resident of Minnesota.
g. Defendant, MICHAEL HEDLUND ,atalltimes relevanthereto, was the EAST

GRAND FORKS CHIEF OF POLICE and aresident of Minnesota.
10. Defendant, JAMES RICHTER, at'all times relevant hereto, was the DIRECTOR
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY _ EAST
GRAND FORKS and aresident of Minnesota.
11. Defendant, DAVID MURPIIY, at all times relevant hereto, was the EAST
GRAND FORKS CITY ADMINISTRATOR, and is believed by Plaintiffto be a
resident of Minnesota.
RODNEY HAJICEK, at all times relevant hereto, was an EAST

12. Defendant,
GRAND FORKS POLICE OFFICER and aresident of Minnesota.
13. Defendant, AEISSO SCHRAGE, at all times relevant hereto, was an EAST
GRAND FORKS POLICE OFFICER and aresident of Minnesota.
14. Defendant, MICHAEL LACOURSIERE, at all times relevant hereto, was an

attorney for the MINNESOTA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE and a resident
of Minnesota.'
15: Defendant, JEANETTE RINGUETTE, at all times relevant hereto, was the
OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE for all relevant matters hereof at the GRAND
FORKS NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE and a resident of Minnesota.
16. Defendant, JOHN DOE's information is presentlyunknown.
17. Defendant CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS is defined as a'person' within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
T\is 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Rights case has been brought in the fullness of time.
Facts and circumstances set forth herein show that in 2008, Timothy Chades Holmseth
(hereby referred to as Plaintiff or Holmseth), a respected and law abiding citizen, un-
wittingly re-located into an area that was infested with comrption, of which he soon
became the target.
lnl999, the East Grand Forks Economic Development and Housing Authority (EDHA)
.loaned a company called Boardwalk Enterprises LLP $510,000 at zero percent interest
for a post-flood building project. Annual $30,000 payments were scheduled to begin in
2003 and finish in20l9. The mortgage was never filed and no payments were.evermade
on the loan. The building in question was owned by the Mayor's brother; and two city
attorneys had been quietly involved in the conspiracy of silence as a small group of
public officials were quietly running out the statute of limitations on the fraud lrnd money
laundering scheme.
In 2008, Plaintifi an award-winning news reporter re-located to East Grand Forks,

Minnesota from Breckenridge, Minnesota where he had been the Minnesota Government
Reporter for the Wahpeton Daily News. He began a freelance writing service, and in
2009 he established media agreements with legal professionals in Florida involved in the
search for a missing child named Haleigh Cummings. SEE EXHIBIT A
Soon thereafter, Plaintifflearned he had interviewed law enforcement's suspects in the

Haleigh Cummings kidnapping; as well as parties/witnesses involved in the Casey
Anthony murder trial. The missing child Haleigh Cummings' mother's lawyer, Kim
Picazio, had been questioned by law enforcement per their belief she transported
Haleigh across state lines.
Plaintiff interviewed Kim Picazio, and she advised that she herself was legally
represented by a Florida law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, & Adler. In 2010, Scott
Rothstein, CEO of the law firm, having pled guilty to RICO charges was sentenced to 50
years in prison. Scott Rothstein operated the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of
Florida - $1.2 Billion.
Kim Picazio told Plaintiffshe was "coordinating" leads in the Haleigh Cummings
investigation and working closely with Putnam County Sheriff s Office detectives
including Captain Dominic Piscitello and Detective Peggy Cone. She told Plaintiffher
team of "investigators" were working on the Haleigh Cummings case. Plaintiff would
soon discover her 'team of investigators' consisted of felons, pedophiles, and human
traffickers.
William Staubs, aprivate investigator working for Kim Picazio,told Plaintiffthat Kim
Picazio and her husband. Michael Picazio. were involved in a biofuels deal that
guaranteed them aback-door government conhact involving Scott Rothstein and (then)
Florida Governor Charlie Christ, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. William Staubs
sent Plaintiffan audio recording of Kim Picazio talking to another kidnapping suspect,
Jeremiah Regan, and telling him she had been promised $231 Million. Staubs told Dana
Treen at the Jacksonville Times-Union that Kim Picazio promised Jeremiah Regan $2
Million if he kept his mouth shut.
In June of 2009 Kim Picazio and her associates began calling the East Grand Forks
Police Department (EGFPD) in Minnesota and asking for special favors -particularly-
they wanted the local police to circumvent the media contract that existed between
Plaintiffand Kim Picazio, and use law enforcement powers to prevent Plaintiff from
.writing about the kidnapping and stop him from cooperating with the FBI. The callers
were using apaid media consultant, who sometimes appeared on the.Nancy Grace Show,
but was falsely identifying himself as a CNN reporter, to un-nerve the local police
deparknent and local newspaper.
The City of East Grand Forks and rogue elements of the judicial communi tylaysiege to
PlaintifPs publication and utilized virtually every government and law enforcement
resource available to them as they set out to violate PlaintifPs rights. PlaintifPs ability to
thrive was completely and utterly decimated by the non-stop tyrannical activities of the
comrpt officials that endeavored to destroy his reputation, business, and family.
Between 2009 and 201.4, Plaintiffwas stalked from job to job, forced to live on welfare;
and defamed beyond comprehension. But he persevered. He continued operating his
publication on a shoe-sfring budget, while independeritly investigating local officials,
gathering information, and reporting the comrpt and illegal activities to state and federal
law enforcement.
In December of 2013 Plaintiffreported the City of East Grand Forks to the Minnesota
State Auditor and requested and audit and investigation.
In April of 201,4 an audit exposed the tip of the ice-berg that Plaintiff was investigating
when the Grand Forks Herald and WDAZ reported '$510,000loan to EGF goes unpaid
for 10 years'.
EDHA Director James Richter would soon retire under a cloud of suspicion. As an
investigation into the'Boardwalk Enterprises' scandal continued, EGF City Attorney
Ronald Galstad would be replaced by an outside attorney where the investigation of
'Boardwalk Enterprises' was concemed.
An official public (closed door) meeting held on May 7,z}l4,between EGF city ofEcials
and representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises at the private office of Ronald Galstad
(Galstad, Jensen, and McCann). EGF Adminishator David Murphy told WDAZ that city
officials met with Boardwalk Enterprises and their "attorney''. When asked later, Brad
Sinclair, the attorney representing the City, would not discuss who Boardwalk
Enterprise's attorney was at the May 7,201.4 meeting. The City would also not state
whether or not Ronald Galstad represented the City at the meeting. Facts and
circumstances indicate Ronald Galstad may have been the attorney for both Boardwalk
Enterprises and the City at the same meeting.
On August 25,2014, the Grand Forks Herald reported that Minnesota Open Meeting law
expert, Attorney Mark Anfinson, determined EGF officials had violated the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law on August 11,2074, when they met behind closed doors with
Boardwalk Enterprises
It was clear City officials were/are attempting to cover-up and conceal the identity of all
.the players in the Boardwalk Enterprises money laundering scheme by holding illegal
meetings not open to the public.
The City of East Grand Forks and the 9ft Minnesota Judicial District is infested with
comrption of rogue officials.
Set forth herein evidence, records, facts, circumstances, testimony, and witnesses,
- '
reveal both James Richter and Ronald Galstad, along with the assistance of the EGFPD,
other government employees, as well as judicial officers, began violating PlaintifPs
rights in 2009 and never stopped.
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Because PlaintifPs computer's hard-drive was rendered inoperable while in the custody
of the EGFPD, the exhibits presented in support of this Complaint are not all the exhibits
that exist. Rather, the attached exhibits are the exhibits Plaintiff could readily acquire at
the time of this filing.
IV. FACTS
A. TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH
18. Timothy Holmseth, 46, (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "Holmseth") is a news reporter,

joumalist, songwriter, and author with an Associates Degree in Media
Communications from Northland Community College, Thief River Falls,
Minnesota. He has received first place awards from the North Dakota News Paper
Association (NDNA) for his writing and reporting. He has worked contractually
with mlsic companies as a songwriter. He has worked contractually with
magazines as a feature content writer.
19. Plaintiffreceived a first place award from the NDNA in2007 for Best News
Series for a story he covered spanning nearly a year. His professional references
include a county attomey, elected officials, and hand-written letters of
commendation from respected community leaders. He has served beside local
leaders on community civic boards and invited to be a featured guest speaker at a
-
public event. He has passed a federal background check performed through the
United States Deparbnent of Commerce to workin a secure federal facility and
move freely through secure areas. He was deemed "credible" during a kidnapping
investigation by a special agent of the FBI.
20. Plaintiffis a successful single parent and had sole physical custody of his
daughter from the time she was approximately four years-old until adulthood-
she now studies at the Universitv of Minnesota.
21. Plaintiff moved to East Grand Forks with his daughter in 2008 to be closer to his
. 'imall son (of another relationship) of whom Plaintiffshares joint legal custody.
22.In2008, Plaintiff began developing a freelance writing business with aspirations

to grow the business into a full service writing business and publishing company.
B. PLAINTIFF CONDUCTS JOURNALISM INTERVIEWS WITH KEY

FIGURES IN NATIONAL PROFILE CHILD MURDER AND KIDNAPPING
CASES IN FLORIDA
23.InApril of 2009, Plaintiffwas contacted by Rev. Richard Grund, a case witness in

the Casey Anthony murder trial in Florida. The Casey Anthony murder trial was a
high profile murder case that has been called the 'social media trial of the
century'. Grund wanted to talk to Plaintiff about two child cases in Florida - the
missing child Haleigh Cummings and murdered toddler Caylee Anthony.
24. Plaintiff s communications with Rev. Grund led to recorded journalistic

interviews with many others involved in the Florida cases including William
Staubs (a.k.a. Cobra the Bounty Hunter), Attorney Kim Picazio, and nationally
renowned AuthorA/ictim's Advocate Wayanne Kruger.
25. Plaintiffleamed critical information during the interviews regarding the child
cases because some of the people he was interviewing were under suspicion by
law enforcement in Florida. Plaintifflearned from Attorney Kim Picazio that she
(Picazio) and one of her staffmembers had been questioned by law enforcement
' per law enforcefirent's suspicion she and the staffer had transported the missing
child Haleigh Cummings across state lines.
26.InJu1y of 2009 the FBI began to follow up on information they received from
Plaintiffregarding the kidnapped child Haleigh Cummings.
27.lnFebruary of 2010 the Minneapolis FBI contacted Plaintiffand requested he

come in and be interviewed. The agent requested select audio from his interviews.
Plaintiff met with the FBI on several occasions and provided that agency various
audio recordings.
C. PLAINTIFF IS TARGETED FOR DEFAMATION, HARASSMENT,

STALKING, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, AND THREATS BY
KIDNAPPING SUSPECTS
28. Beginning in June of 2009, Kim Picazio (Florida), Donna Wagoner (Florida), Art
Harris (Georgia), Cindy Travis (unknown), and Rhonda Callahan (North Dakota)
all made reports against Plaintiff to the EGFPD. Lt. Rodney Hajicek recorded the
reports in Case Number 09002015 and stated he received numerous reports
against Plaintiffbut noted all were civil in nature. SEE EXHIBIT B
29. Kim Picazio was the attomey for Crystal Sheffield, who is the mother of the
' missing child Haleigh Cummings. Kim Picazio and Plaintiff entered into a media
contract whereby Kim Picazio would provide Plaintiff with tips and information
on the Haleigh Cummings case; in return she would receive media exposure from
Plaintiff.
30. Kim Picazio is married to Michael Picazio, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Michael
Picazio is a convicted felon- federal fraud.
31. fut Harris is a tabloid blogger and in 2009 was a pundit on the Nancy Grace
show. He is formerly of CNN (but was fired during the first kaq war for
disclosing American soldiers positions), and was the paid media co4sultant
working for Kim Picazio and William Staubs. Donna Wagoner was a media
events specialist working for Kim Picazio. Rhonda Callahan is the mother of
PlaintifPs son, and, email threads show she was in communications with Art
Haris, William Staubs, and Kim Picdzio, during relevant times,'and conspired to
file unprecedented child protection complaints against Plaintiff, after Plaintiff
began to doing interviews on the Haleigh Cummings kidnapping case.
32. Beginning in 2009, Plaintiff became the perpetual victim of false police reports,
false CPS reports, harassing phone calls, blackmail, extortion, cyber-stalking,
slander, defamation, and assault. Evidence, documents, affidavits, police records,
and court records show the non-stop attack on Plaintiffstemmed from his
journalism on the Haleigh Cummings and Caylee Anthony cases. Evidence
shows the harassment invariably flowed from Kim Picazio, Art Harrii, William
Staubs, Rhonda Calahan, and agents operating on theirbehalf. Records show
Plaintiffrepeatedly asked for help from the EGFPD but was ignored. Evidence
shows Kim Picazio was still harassing Plaintiff in2014.
33. Plaintiff has been relentlessly defamed on a website that was erected in 2009
called www.radionewz.net. The website has published false content about
Plaintiffand his children. The website is x-rated and Plaintiffhas been repeatedly
sexually assaulted online on www.radionewz.net.In20l4, Kim Picazio publicly
stated on her law firm's Twitter account that she is the attorney for
www.radionewz.net. Facts, circumstances, and belief cause Plaintiff to believe
Kim Picazio actually operates the website and authors its content.
D. EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTS AS AGENT FOR

KIDNAPPING SUSPECTS _ INTIMIDATES PLAINTIFF . TARGETS
PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS
34. On 06l02l0glt. Rodney Hajicek reported that he received a call from an attorney
named Kjm Picazio from Fort Lauderdale, Florida and notes she is representing
the mother of a missing child named Haleigh Cummings.Picazio complains to
Hajicek she is receiving "disturbing emails" from Plaintiff and writing things
about her on his website www.writeintoaction.com that are not true. Lt. Hajicek
finds it to be a civil issue "but not a criminal issue that I can see at this poinf'.
SEE EXHIBIT B
35. On 06118109 Lt. Hajicek rqrorts that Donna Wagoner of Fort Lauderdale, Florida
telephoned him regarding Plaintiffand a picture (i.e. - digitally altered photograph
of Haleigh Cummings) Wagoner emailed to Kim Picazio. Wagoner asked Lt.
Hajicek to call Plaintiffand tell Plaintiffshe does not want him to write anything
about her Company (Xentel Inc). Lt. Hajicek notes he called Plaintiff and wamed
him he will be "advising individuals to seek harassment orders against him in the
future if there appears to be abasis for it". SEE EXHIBIT B
36.Lt.Hajicek telephoned and intimidated Plaintiffon behalf of Xentel Inc, a Florida

based company that has been sued by agencies including State's Attorney
Generals in Ohio, Colorado,Iowa, Missouri, South Cardlina, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Tennessee, Oregon, for fraud: The story PlaintifPs was developing at
the time was about a Photoshopped picture of an Amber Alert chitd (Haleigh
Cummings) being used online to solicit donations from the public by fraudulently
creiting the impression the funds would be used to osearch' for the missing child.
The money was actually being used to buy drugs, cell phone minutes, mqke-up,
and sunglasses. Other money from the public was deposited into a Wachovia bank
account in the name of Kim Picazio. The donations were being illegally solicited
because the not-for-profit charfty was nol registered with the Florida Department
of Agriculture. Plaintiffhad acquired the actual emails featuring the missing child
directly from the Web designer that showed the Photoshopped picture passed
right through Donna Wagoner's email account at Xentel Inc. PlaintifPs (
]
investigative journalism was entirely legal.
37. On 07120109 Lt. Hajicek reported he had had subsequently received multiple
complaints against Plaintiff from Cindy Travis, Art Harris, and Rhonda Callahan.
SEE EXHIBIT B
E. EGFPD ASSISTS KIDNAPPING SUSPECTS IN FLORIDA KIDNAPPING

CASE _ TARGETS PLAINTIFF'S PUBLISHING BUSINESS WHILE
PLAINTIFF IS ASSISTING THE FBI
r
ART HARRIS
38. On 07/07/}gan EGFPD officer responded to a request for an officer at the address
of the East Grand Forks Exponent. The name of the caller is redacted in the police
incident report released by the EGFPD. The report said, "[REDACTED]
WANTED TO SPEAK WITH ME ABOUT ART HARRIS, CNN REPORTER,
WHO CALLED TO DISCUSS TMOTIIY HOLMSETH WHO WAS A
FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE BERGMAN'S. ART ASKED A FEW
QUESTIONS ABOUT TIMOTITY AND NOW IREDACTED] IS NERVOUS
WHAT ART WILL WRITE AND HOW TIMOTT{Y WILL RESPOND IF SHE
IS BROUGHT UP AT ALL. ART AND TIMOTTIY HAVE A BLOG FEUD

.GOING
ON OVER THE MISSING GIRL FROM FLORIDA". SEE EXHIBIT C
39. Plaintiffwould later formally request the name of the redacted caller from the
EGFPD. Police Chief Michael Hedlund refused to provide the name of the
redacted caller. Hedlund stated it was for the safety of the caller. However - the
EGFPD never provided equal such protection to Plaintiff. Rather, the EGFPD
openly recorded PlaintifPs rurme in every bogus report made against Plaintiff, and
despite admitting Plaintiffwas breaking no laws; took adverse action against
Plaintiffand his publication clothed under the 'color of law'.
40. On 07109109 Art Ha:ris emailed Lt. Hajicek and asked him to consider "pressing
charges" against Plaintiff. There was no stated reason or basis for 'charges'
because Plaintiffwas not breaking any laws whatsoever
(.
41. On 07110109 Art Harris emailed Lt. Hajicek. "I'm in shock, but just heard the FBI
; actually paid a visit to the Web design firm in Florida that donated their time to
the website for the missing child. Based on [Timothy Holmseth's] absurd
accusations he's now almost gotten a23 year employee (Donna Wagoner, Xentel,
Inc) fired for sending the child's photo on her company email to the pro bono web
firm," Harris said. SEE EXHIBIT D
42. On07ll8l09 Art Harris sent a follow-up email to Lt. Hajicek and asked, "What
did your did DA say?"
43. On07120109, Lt. Hajicek stated in Case Number 09002015 "I have printed all the
emails from my computer and will have the County Attorney's offi,ce review them
to see if any other action can be taken". This statement by Hajicek demonstrates
he was seeking to assist those complaining about Plaintiffand was actively
helping them anywayhe could. SEE DC{IBIT B
44.T\e email thread produced by Hajicek only shows the emails authored by Harris.
Hajicek's emails appear to have been strategically removed.
+ SUMMARY: During June and July of 2009 the EGFPD is suddenly

bombarded with nuisance complaints from a handful of callers against
Plaintiff, an award-winning journalist writing about a national profile
missing child case involving an active Amber Alert. The callers are all
' associated with each other, and encouraglng the EGFPD to take criminal
legal action against Plaintifffor things he is writing, although Plaintiffis
not committing any criminal acts. In July of 2009, the EGFPD and Polk
County Attorney leam from one of the contacts that the FBI in Florida is
acting on information they received from Plaintiff regarding the kidnapped
child. The information the FBI is following in Florida, led directly to
THREE of the individuals that were calling the EGFPD on Plaintiff.
Despite this - the EGFPD DID NOT alert the FBI that their informant was
being targeted - but rather - continued and intensified its aggression

' against Plaintiff - trying to shut Plaintiff up
45. On 08114109, the EGFPD received areport from Rhonda Callahan of suspected
'Child Maltreatment' - 'Concem that kids have access to a loaded go" ne
reportedly sleeps with'. This fictional report to police resulted in CPS and EGFPD
coming to PlaintifPs home and demanding entry and requesting to view
PlaintifPs firearm. The report shows PlaintifPs .22 caliber rifle, which he had
owned since he was 13 years-old, was unloaded and the clip was stored far away
from the rifle (for the safety of his children). The report was unfounded and
closed. Emails show this scenario was planned out between Rhonda Callahan and
William Staubs. After the event - Art Harris published information about it on the
Web to make Plaintiffappearmentallyunstable and dangerous; a cruyman
having trouble with the police and a danger to his kids.
46.The CPS complaint filed by Rhonda Callahan against Plaintiffwas the fifth CPS
complaint filed by Callahan in only four months. Every complaint was screened
out or unfounded. Callahan began filing the unprecedented complaints shortly
after Plaintiffconducted his interviews on the Haleigh Cummings kidnapping
case. Callahan had come into communications with Art Harris, William Staubs,
and Kim Picazio, for the first time ever, at around this very time. Email threads
that later surfaced show Callahan was discussing Plaintiffwith William Staubs,
Art Harris, and Kim Picazio. Ros.eau County Family Court records will show that
Callahan's attomey, Michael Jorgenson, admitted in open court he had a
conference call with the out-of-state individuals under investigation in the
Haleigh Cummings kidnapping. Jorgenson told Honorable Donna Dixon they
had nothing of value to ofFer during the call and simply kept telling him that
Plaintiffwas'crazy'.
47. As of August of 2009,the EGFPD had a wealth of evidence that individuals under
investigation in Florida for a kidnapping had suddenly and inexplicably contacted
the mother of a local journalist's child, and then collectively, began to file false
. police and CPS reports against the journalist that was writing about the
kidnapping - labeling him crazy and dangerous. Despite this knowledge, the
EGFPD did not alert the FBI but continued its siege on Plaintiffand his business.
F. PLAINTIFF FIRED FROM JOB WORKING FOR CITY OF EAST GRAND

FORKS
48. On 09129109, Plaintiffbegan a temporary job working as a traffic counter for the
Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Mefropolitan Planning Organization. Plaintiffwas
hired through Express Personnel. Plaintiffmet his immediate supervisor at EGF
City Hall parking lot. Plaintiff recalls sitting in the office of former EDHA
director, James Richter, while being grven instructions on how to operate the
traffic counter/clicker, etc. On 09/30/09 Plaintiffbegan his job of counting caxs,
and then, after counting cars for only a few hours, the supervisor pulled up and
I
told Plaintiffhis job was over. This incident reveals Plaintiffhad managed to
'become briefly employed by the City of EGF because the hiring was done by
Express Personnel. When the City of EGF realized theyhad inadvertently
employed Plaintiff he was immediately terminated. SEE DGIIBIT E
G. PLAINTIFF INTERVIEWED BY THE MINNEAPOLIS FBI
4g.lnFebruary of 2010 Plaintiffwas interviewed by Special Agent A.J. Eilerman of

the Minneapolis FBI regarding interviews he conducted regarding the Haleigh
Cummings kidnapping. Plaintiffwas asked for copies of select interviews he
conducted. Agent Eilerman told Plaintiffhe was going to call the Jacksonville
FBI office and tell them Plaintiffwas credible.
H. PLAINTIFF RELEASES BOOK ABOUT HALEIGH CUMMINGS

KIDNAPPING CASE
50. In January of 2011, Plaintiffreleased his book entitled "In Re: Haleigh
Cummings (the shocking truth revealed)". The book was featured on the
television news and sold well upon release. Major Gary Bowling, the director of
law enforcement at the Pufiram County SherifPs Office in Florida requested a
copy. The book was based upon recorded interviews conducted by Plaintiff. The
book is still for sale on Amazon and Plaintiffhas never once been sued for
anything written in the book because everything is based'upon recorded
interviews.
I. PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY CAR _ NO CHARGES FILED AGAINST

ASSAILANT BY EGFPD OR POLK COUNTY SHERIFF
51. On 08/22171 Plaintiffwas struck by an automobile driven by his son's mother,

Rhonda Callatran. Callatran violentlybacked into Plaintiffwith one car door still
open; nearly hitting PlaintifPs teenage daughter. Plaintiff s terrified son was in
the car. Callahan then fled the scene and had to be called on the telephone by
police and told to come to the police station. The EGFPD did not charge Callahan
with any crime, whatsoever. Matthew Petrovich, the guardian ad litem assigned to
their child in common, wrote in a GAL report that Callahan told him she 'moved
Timothy Holmseth out of the way with the car'. Plaintiffwas diagnosed at Altru
with "Contusion of Thigh".
J. DEFENDANTS ASSIST AND COORDINATE WITH ATTORNEY KIM

PICAZIO TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFFI: CIVIL RIGHTS
THE FLORIDA DTVORCE COURT SCHEME
52. On09/08/1L, Kim Picazio, a CIVIL DIVORCE ATTORNEY [emphasis added],

petitioneil aFLORIDA DIVORCE COURT (DVCE) [emphasis added] for an
injunction for protection against Repeat Violence (a Florida domestic violence
law) against Plaintiff. Plaintiffhad/has never met Kim Picazio nor had he been to
'Florida. The Petition requested the Florida Court order Plaintiffremove any and
all content about Kim Picazio from the Web. The request also asked Plaintiffbe
ordered to turn in all of his firearms, ammunition, and permits to the Broward
County SherifPs Office in Florida. Kim Picazio filed the Petition as a strategic
way of circumventing the media contract had with Plaintiff. The Petition was over
300 pages long and appears to have been authored by someone that is mentally ill.
It alleged that Plaintiffhad engaged in over 1,000 acts of stalking. SEE EXHIBIT
A
53. Attempting to defend himself from the ridiculous accusations being made by a
media contact with whom he had a well documented contract, Plaintiffmade
THREE separate requests to the City of EGF for police records. Plaintiff followed
exact procedure and filled out the form provided on the rack in the EGFPD lobby
and tumed it in to the duty officer. Because Kim Picazio had called the EGFPD
many times, Plaintiffneeded the records to send to the Florida Court, as to defend
himself against the fraudulent DVCE (divorce) domestic violence protection
injunction being requested by Kim Picazio who was nothing more than a media
contact (SEE E)A{IBIT A). Lt. Rodney Hajicek retused to provide Plaintiff the
records, which was in violation of the City's own posted policy. Plaintiff
requested the records THREE times which clearly demonstrates Hajicek's
motives were malicious, calculated, and involved forethought.
54. Plaintiffreported to Lt. Hajicek thatWilliam Staubs (Attorney Kim Picazio's

private investigator) telephoned him from Florida and told him if he traveled to
Ft. Lauderdale to attend the court hearing he was very likely going to be murdered
by Mob associates of Kim and Michael Picazio (convicted felon - federal fraud).
Lt. Hajicek showed no interest and made no report. Plaintiff subsequently
provided Lt. Hajicek a sworn Affidavit from William Staubs wherein Staubs
stated he eye-witnessed Michael Picazio brandish a Mini 14 Carbine Assault Rifle
and declare it was the gUn that would be used to shoot "Timothy Holmseth".
Staubs stated Kim Picazio was present and laughing. Staubs then telephoned
Maria Burgun, a former business partner of Kim and Michael Picazio. Maria
Burgun confirmed that Michael Picazio once telephoned her and told her he was
going to shoot "Timothy Holmseth" through the door of his home. Lt. Hajicek
took no action to record these threat assessments.
55. On 09119111, a Florida judge denied PlaintifPs request to appear in court by

telephone, and GRANTED Kim Picazio's petition for the Injunction against
domestic violence against Plaintiff. The Injunction ordered him to remove
everything he had ever published about Kim Picazio from the Web. Everything
Plaintiffpublished was lawfullypublished in the State of Minnesota. The Florida
court further ordered Plaintiffto turn over his firearms, ammunition, and permits
to the Broward County SherifPs Office. SEE EXHIBIT G
56. The police reports and records that Lt. Hajicek would not turn over to Plaintiffin
'advance of the Florida court hearing, proved that everything Plaintiffhad
published was legal and not in violation of any criminal statute. The Florida court
never saw Plaintiff s evidence because Hajicek deliberately interfered with
PlaintifPs ability to defend himself by withholding the records.
57. On ttl21l1t, ttre EGFPD arrested Plaintiff for allegedly violating the Florida
order. Plaintiffwas accused of publishing something in violation of the Florida
Injunction. The EGFPD did not establish legal Venue to bring the charge - nor
did they attempt to establish Venue - but simplybrought the charge anyway. The
arrest warant was signed by Lt. Hajicek and EGF City Attomey Ronald Galstad.
58. On ll/22lll, Plaintiffwas released from jail on the condition he not publish
anything on the Web. Betweenlll22ltl and 70l29l12,Plaintiff, a publisher by
trade and profession, was,legally prohibited from publishing anything at {1.
04l02l72,EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund responded to a formal

' 59. On
complaint filed by Plaintiffregarding the EGFPD's refusal to respond to
PlaintifPs requests for public records, which naturally and logically resulted in the
issuance of the Injunction by the Florida court that was subsequently used to
justiff arresting Plaintiff. SEE EXHIBIT H Hedlund apologized and offered to
satisfu the records request. Hedlund asked Plaintiffto fill out the 'Document
Request Form' again and submit it directly to him. This gesture by Hedlund
suggests he does not have the FIRST THREE requests Plaintiffsubmitted.
. However, Hedlund's request that Plaintifffill the form out againwould later
PROVE his Department was comrpt and hiding documents, because onl2l1.4/72,
the EGFPD suddenly found an envelope full of police incident reports requested
by Plaintiff that had been printed-out onl0l24l7l (thus proving that somebody
had received the records requests and printed the police reports). When the two
sets ofpolice incidents are compared to each other, they don't match and
information about Kim Picazio and Lt. Hajicek has been removed. SEE EXHIBIT
I
K. DEFENDANT(S) VIOLATE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
PLAINTIFF COERCED INTO PLEA DEAL UNDER EXTREME DURESS _ PART

ONE OF A TWO PART PLAN TO FALSELY CONVICT PLAINTIFF
60. On \Olzgllz,after nearly ayear,Plaintiff anived at the Polk County Justice

Center prepared for trial. He was charged with violating the Florida court order.
He was accompanied by his daughter Marina Holmseth, a case wibress. Plaintiff
met with Michael LaCoursiere, the public defender assigned to his case.
LaCoursiere had told Plaintifffor an entire year he had a very strong case for trial
because the City of EGF had no Venue. On the day of the trial, LaCoursiere
suddenly and abruptly told Plaintiff that EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad
wanted Plaintiff to accept a plea deal of an Alford plea. Plaintiff declined.
LaCoursiere told Plaintiffthat if he refused to accept an Alford plea deal, Galstad

was going to call a police officer to the stand to lie. Plaintiff agatn declined.
LaCourisere then added the name of another officer he said he believed was going
to be called to lie. The officers LaCoursiere named were EGF Sgt. Detective
Chris Olson and Polk County Deputy Jesse Haugen. LaCoursiere told Plaintiff
there was a plan by the police to have Plaintiff put in "St. Cloud" state prison.
LaCoursiere reminded Plaintiffthat if he was in "St. Cloud" he would not be able
to see his children. He also told Plaintiff that if he was in prison nobody would
ever believe him about what really happened to the "little girl" (Haleigh
Cummings). Plaintiff continued to disagree with LaCoursiere and insisted on a
' trial.
61. Plaintiffasked Lacoursiere several times if the Prosecution's alleged victim and
witness (Kim Picazio) was present for the trial. LaCoursiere would not give
Plaintiffa shaight answer. LaCoursiere continued to pressure Plaintiff about a
plot to have him put in prison, and repeatedly reminded him that the only way to '
escape the plot by the police was to accept an Alford plea.
62. Plaintifffinally realizedhis own attomey was in on the plot; succumbed to the
coercion; and accepted the Alford plea.
THE GROUNDWORK FOR PART 2 OF THE PLAN IS LAID DOWN
63. During the Court hearing on 10129172, Ronald Galstad proactively REQUESTED
the Court allow Michael LaCoursiere remain PlaintifPs attorneyuntil the
Compliance Review hearing, which had been scheduled for l2ll2ll2 was
complete. Galstad's request was a DEVIATION from standard procedure and the
policy of the Public Defender's Office. According to Public Defender Supervisor
Kjp Fontaine, Michael LaCoursiere's representation of Plaintiffwas supposed to
end that day -but Galstad proactively interfered and kept LaCoursiere in place as
part of a conspiracy that was unfolding.
64.*If I could, Your Honor, sometimes the Public Defender's office is no longer
involved in the case for the review hearing. I would like to specifically make sure
on the record that he is still represented by Mr. LaCoursiere. Well, that would be
my request," Galstad said.
65. Plaintiffsubsequently filed a formal complaint to the Office of Lawyers

Professional Responsibility (OLPR) against EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad
and Michael LaCoursiere. The OLPR found that no disciplinary action would be
taken without an investigation.
L. DEFENDANT GALSTAD HAD NO WITNESSA/ICTIM TO TESTIFY AT

TRIAL BUT PURPORTED TO THEbOURT THAT HE DID
66. In December of 2072,Ronald Galstad emailed Judge Tamara Yon requesting that
'Kim Picazio appear by ITV at a hearing. "Kim Picazio is in Florida and the
expense of the judicial economy would dictate that the efficiencies of ITV would
serve justice in this matter," Galstad said. The Court never authorized Galstad's
request. Notably- Galstad made mention of the "judicial economy''in his
argument. He was seeking to spare expenses by forgoing fravel, etc. It is common
practice for the prosecution to pay for the travel and lodging expenses of their
victim/wibress.
67. Facts and circumstances indicate Ronald Galstad had no victim/witness (i.e. Kim
Picazio) present to testiff against Plaintiffat the trial scheduled for l0l29ll2,but
purported to the Court that he did. Statements by both Ronald Galstad and
Honorable Tamara Yon during an exchange at the 10/29112 hearing show the
Court was under the impression the State's witness/victim was present and
prepared to testiff. It is evidenced by the fact the Judge asked Galstad about
"plane tickets".
68. MR. GALSTAD. "The only thing would be that I have testimony by Kim Picazio
that just indicated that she did in fact file a petition requesting a temporary order
and final order, that she would testiff that..." THE COURT: "All right. Now is
the State seeking any costs of prosecution?" MR. GALSTAD: "The only costs of
prosecution would be one $50 costs of prosecution and it would be combined. It
wouldn't be three separate ones for the charges. It would just be one cost of
prosecution. There wouldn't be a law library fee or surcharge". THE COURT:
"So you're not abking, for example, to pay plane tickets or anything like that?"
MR.'GALSTAD: "No".
69. In 2014 Plaintiffmade a public records request to the City of EGF. Plaintiff
requested Accounts Payable records from the City demonstrating the City paid
travel and lodging expenses for Kim Picazio on and/or around l0l29lt2. David
Murphy responded to Plaintiff and advised no such records existed. The City had '
never paid any expenses for Kim Picazio to travel to Minnesota to testiff at a trial.
M. DEFENDANT VIOLATES PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS -

ATTEMPTS TO FRAME PLAINTIFF
70. On lzlIzll2a Compliance Review Hearing was scheduled to assure that Plaintiff
had complied with the terms of the Alford plea set forth on 10129/12.
71. On Izl)Ill\,Plaintiffreceived a Motion in the p.S. Mail that had been sent to
him by the Polk County Court Administrator. The Motion had been filed by EGF
City Attorney Ronald Galstad on 10106112 and was requesting the Court
adjudicate Plaintiffguilty on all three misderneanor counts of violating the Florida
order. The Motion was supported by very vague statements and did not explain in
detail what Plaintiffhad done wrong.
72.The Motion was hand delivered by Lt. Detective Rodney Hajicek, EGFPD, to
- Plaintiff s public defender, Michael LaCoursiere, on 72110112. PlaintifPs attomey
(LaCoursiere) never advised or notified Plaintiff of the Motion upon service.
Because LaCoursiere participated in the coercion that took place on 10129172 that
resulted in Plaintiffagreeing to the Alford plea in the first place, Plaintiff was
already suspicioug and cynical. This latest turn of events caused Plaintiffto
become even more suspicious of Lacoursiere. Plaintiff emailed LaCoursiere -
immediately and confronted what appeared to be a set-up.
73. Onl2ll2llza Compliance Review hearing was held. Galstad wanted the Court to
hold an Evidentiary Hearing without providing Discovery. He planned to show
the Court some You Tube videos lawfully published by Plaintiffmany years prior
that contained the name "Kim Picazio" buried deep in the scrolling text of various
narratives. Galstad was asserting this was a violation of the Alford plea. Plaintiff
had gone to great lengths to come into compliance with the Alford plea and Court
Order, and the very old videos from years prior had become a layer of sediment in
the natural rotation of Web content and gone un-detected by Plaintiff. If the
videos would have been pointed out to Plaintifl he could have just 'deleted' them
like he did everything else that he found. If LaCoursiere would have immediately
contacted Plaintiffwhen he was hand served by Hajicek on l2l70ll2, Plaintiff
could have simply gone on the Web - performed a deep search for the content -
and deleted it - thus coming into compliance with the Alford plea by l2l72lI2.
Therefore - LaCourisre's inaction was extremelv detrimental to his own client
(Plaintiff).
74. This was clearly the purpose of Ronald Galstad's shange request to the Court to
break from standard policy and keep Michael LaCoursiere as PlaintifPs lawyer
through the Compliance Review hearing.
75. Evidence shows Ronald Galstad strategically filed the Motion at the last second;
Hajicek served it upon LaCoursiere who then stayed quiet about it and
intentionally kept the details regarding the alleged violation away from Plaintifl
. because Plaintiffhad unttil12112112 to come into compliance with the condition of
the Alford plea. Plaintiffcaught on to the plot only a few hours before the court
hearing and confronted LaCoursiere. Plaintiffbrought the email he wrote to
LaCoursiere with him to the l2ll2ll2 hearing and was going to stand up in the
middle of the hearing and show the email to Honorable Tamara Yon if
LaCoursiere did not request a continuance and Discovery to be produced.
76. Honorable Yon refused to allow Galstad to hold an Evidentiary Hearing on

l2llzll2without turning over Discovery and a future court date was set.
N. bEFENDANTS CONTINUE TO ASSIST KIM AND MICHAEL PICAZIO -

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN ASSOCIATES _ KIDNAPPING SUSPECTS _ CHILD
SEX TRAFFICKERS
TT.InPolice Report number MN0600200, Lt. Rodney Hajicek continues to accept

'and record negative reports regarding Plaintifffrom Kim and Michael Picazio.
78. On 11107112 Lt. Hajicek recorded that Michael Picazio telephoned him. "Mike
expressed that he was angry about the posts on line again by Tim Holmseth and
informed me that he almost lost abusiness conhact because of the things that Mr.
Holmseth is posting," Hajicek said.
Tg.lnzlll,Plaintifflearned from Edward Boyle, the brother of Maria Burgun, a

Plaintiffin a civil lawsuit against Michael Picazio (in which she prevailed) that
Kim and Michael Picazio are in very deep trouble in the United States Bankruptcy
Court before The Honorable Raymond Ray. Judge Ray is also the Judge handling
the fallout from the Rothstein case.
80. Boyle told Plaintiffthat Michael and Kim Picazio have operated a Ponzi scheme
for years and a list of felonies has been submitted to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
by an attorney and/or the Bankruptcy Trustee. Boyle described the detailed Count
list of criminal felonies as unfathomable - impossible to describe because it's so
big (pages and pages and pages of felonies). Example 1: Michael Picazio didn't
file taxes for seven years. Example 2: Michael Picazio allegedly fabricated/forged
a court document to cause an official court action to occur. Example 3: Kim
Picazio is involved in extensive tax fraud against the U.S. Government. Boyle
said the documents are part of an ongoing bankruptcy case and will soon be'
public record.
81. Wayanne Kruger, an author and victim's advocate that assisted Crystal Sheffield
(Haleigh Cummings' mother) in 2009, told Plaintiffthat Michael and Kim
Picazio have operated an illegal baby-brokering child trafficking operation and
sold infants through the United States Embassy using forged medical documents.
Kruger said they executed fake adoptions through the 'church'. They were
assisted by a man named John Regan who impersonated a pastor (as well as an
FBI agent) but was actually, according to Kruger, a serial child rapist.
Kim and Michael Picazio being of honible repute

82. Despite - Defendant(s) spared
no opportunity to assist them against Plaintiff.
O. RETALIATION - DEFENDANTS STAGE BOGUS BCA TASK FORCE RAID

- CREATE FALSE RECORDS _ RONALD GALSTAD LIES TO STATE
DISTRICT JUDGE
83. On l2ll4ll2 Attomey LaCoursiere telephoned Plaintiffand wanted to talk about

his case. Plaintiff RECORDED this call. At the same time Plaintiffwas talking to
LaCoursiere, four EGFPD officers were standing quielly outside the door of
Plaintiffs home-office with their earto his door- listening to him talk to his
lawyer. After asking Plaintiffto discuss his case; and Plaintiffdiscussing various
things about the case; LaCoursiere then very abruptly terminated the call.
seconds after Plaintiffgot off the telephone with LaCoursiere

',84. Approximately 60
on72l74ll2,thefour armed EGFPD officers wearingbullet-proof vests that had
been outside his door, stormed Plaintiff s home-office with a Warrant for his
computer, hard-drive, cameras, recorders, journalism equipment, etc. The
Warrant, signed by Minnesota 9to District Judge JeffRemick, authorized the
EGFPD tO
..SEZE THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THINGS, AND
RETAIN THEM IN CUSTODY SUBJECT TO COURT ORDER AND
ACCORDING TO LAW''. SEE E)GIIBIT J
85. The Search Warant did not authorize any forensi" r.*"h of PlaintifPs lrard-
drive.
Tll2Tll3,Plaintiff submitted a request for records to the

86. Nearly ayear later, on
Polk County Sheriff s Office. Onl2l04ll3, the SherifPs Office provided Plaintiff
a SherifPs Incident Report dated 0312911,3. SEE EXHIBIT K On 03129113'S$.
Investigator Michael Norland said, "On 0312912013I was contacted by Lt.
Rodney Hajicek with the East Grand Forks Police Deparbnent in reference to a
hard-drive that was dropped offat our office by Officer Aeisso Schrage with the
Pine-to-Prairie Task Force ont2lt5l2012". The Clerk advises" There are no
documents, outside of the attached rcport,'generated from Sgt. Norland's search
of your hard drive or documenting a chain of widence". SEE DGIIBIT L
87. Sgt. Norland's bizarreentry did not begin a paper hail regarding PlaintifPs hard-
drive until 0312911.3, and also introduced a new term regarding a 'task force' - - -
"Officer Aeisso Schrage with the Pine-to-Prairie Task Force".
88. In addition to the scenario that the Warrant had been obtained and executed as
part of a'Pine-to-Prairie Gang and Drug Task Force' operation, the EGFPD also
placed evidence stickers on Plaintiff s seized property that read "Minnesota
Deparfrnent of Public Safety/Nlinnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension". SEE
EXHIBIT M
89. Further advancing the criminal hoax, on0ll04ll3, EGF City Attorney Ronald
Galstad told Minnesota District Judge Yon, that the Minnesota Bureau of
Criminal Apprehension (BCA) was involved with the City's case, and needed a
second search warrant to search PlaintifPs hard-drive. Galstad told Judge Yon
that the BCA needed the Warant before they could do a forensic search on the
hard-drive. While it would later be revealed Galstad had no relationship with the
BCA whatsoever, his statement effectively showed he was aware the search
warrant used to seize PlaintifPs property did not authorize a forensic search of
PlaintifP s hard-drive.
90. "What I want to do at this point, because he's made it very clear that there was - -
there was a search warant, that they have confiscated and have into evidence his
computer. I've just been notified that the BCA, before they'll do a forensic search
of that computer, wants either an order of this Court or a search warant that says
,' that they can - - we got the original search wartant, but for whatever reason the
BCA wants something that says they can actually search that hard drive," Galstad
said.
91. On 01,l}3ll4 Plaintifffiled a complaint to Polk County SheriffBarb Erdman

against Sgt. Michael Norland. On01,131114 Erdman advised Plaintiffshe did not
believed Norland's search of the hard-drive was illegal
92. Plaintiffcontacted the BCA to find out if Galstad and the EGFPD had been
working with them regarding his hard-drive, etc. Onl2l09lt3, Jill Oliveira, public
information officer, Minnesota Department of Public Safety said, "The BCA had
no role in the investigation you describe and did not attach any tags to evidence in
that case". SEE EXHIBITN
93. On l2ll3ll3,Drew Evbns, assistant superintendent, BCA, said "We were not
requested to conduct a forensic examination of your computer. On12116113'
Drew Evans said "There are no BCA personnel serving on [the Pine-to-Prairie-
Drug-Task-Forcel. SEE EXHIBIT O
P. EGFPD TURNS OVER HIDDEN POLICE REPORTS _ POLICE REPORTS

CONTAIN DIFFERING INFORMATION _ INFORMATION ABOUT "K[M
PICAZIO' AND "LT. HAJICEK" AND A "RECORDING'OF THE CALI TO
POLICE BY KIM PICAZIO HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE REPORTS
94. During the l2ll4ll2ruidon PlaintifPs home-office, Sgt. Detective Chris Olson, ,
EGFPD, abruptly advised Plaintiffthere was a'\vhite envelope" with his name on
it at the police station. Plaintiffsubsequently picked up the envelope and found it
contained police incident reports that had been printed out on 10124111 (these
would have been the police incident reports Plaintiffrequested three times prior to
the Florida court hearing regarding Kim Picazio and the fraudulent divorce court
scheme).
95. Plaintiffcompared the information contained in the 'White Envelope Reports'

with the information contained in the same reports, which he received from Police
Chief Michael Hedlund on 04/18112. One of the 'White Envelope Reports' did
not match the "Hedlund Rqlorts'. One of the 'White Envelope Reports' was
t'Kim Picazio" "Lt. Hajicek" and a "recording"
missing information about
regarding a call to the police made by Kim Picazio regarding Plaintiff. SEE
DGIIBIT I
96. When Plaintiff requested a copy of the audio of the telephone call made by Kim
Picazio to the police he was told by Michael Hedlund the audio had been
deshoyed.
Q. RONALD GALSTAD EXTORTS PLAINTIFF

!7. Between 1211,4112 and the time of an agreement, Defendant used the City's
possession of Plaintiffs property as a bargaining tool to extort Plaintiff. Before
the bargaining process was over - Plaintiff had withdrawn his formal complaint to
the OLPR against Galstad, and was also required to remove articles critical of
local officials that he had authored and lawfully published on the Web.
R. EGFPD DESTROYS PLAINTIFF'S COMPUTER HARD-DRIVE
98. On Api126,2013 PlaintifPs hard-drive and other seized items were retumed by
order of the court. The property was retumed to him by Officer Aeisso Schrage.
When Plaintiffattempted to start his computer it would not start. He looked inside
and found wires had been moved around and tampered with. He re-situated the
wires. The computer then started but behaved erratically. Plaintifftook a
screenshot of the Adminishator 1og, which shows when the computer has been
tumed on. He saved the screenshot on a flash drive. The computer crashed a few
minutes later. He took the hard-drive to Best Buy and their experts said it could
onlybe recovered in a forensic lab. SEE E)GIIBIT P
S. PLAINTIFF'S LIFE THREATENED AGAIN

99. On July 3, 2OI3,Michael Callahan, the ex-husband of Rhonda Callahan, traveled
to PlaintifPs residence, after first conferring with Rhonda Callahan. Michael
Callahan repeatedly warned Plaintiffhe was going to kill Plaintiffif he filed a
court motion in the family court. PlaintifPs daughter, Marina Holmseth, secretly
recorded the threats, which captured Michael Callatran warning him repeatedly he
would be 'found dead' because 'accidents happen'. Despite having the recording,
the EGFPD did not charge Michael Callahan with a felony - rather - disorderly
conduct - a non-violent misdemeanor.
T. MICHAEL HEDLUND COVERS UP POLICE MISCONDUCT _ FALSE

POLICE REPORT
100. On 08/15/13, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against EGFPD officer Aeisso

Schrage for making a false statement in an official police report. Schrage used /
quotation marks and directly quoted Plaintiff making an incriminating statement
to his attorney on the telephone, which Schrage claimed he overheard Plaintiff
make while eaves-dropping through the door onl2lt4l12, shortlybefore the
police raid on Plaintiffs home-office. Plaintiffwas recording his conversation
with his lawyer and the recording proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that
Plaintiffabsolutely never made the statement Schrage swore he made. Schrage
report said, "On l2ll4l20l2 at approximately 1410 hours, TFO SHRAGE, along
with DET OLSON, OFC HART, and OFC SCHILKE executed a search warant
for the residence of TMOTHY HOLMSETH. When we arrived we overheard
HOLMSETH talking to someone on the telephone, rather loudly, about taking
some videos off the internet and that he "MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN SOME."
We knocked and announced and the door was answered by HOLMSETH".

- Despite the indisputable proof that the officer lied, EGF Chief Michael Hedlund
deemed the complaint'tnfounded".
101. On12l06ll3, EGF Chief Hedlund responded to a document request made

by Plaintiff onIIl20ll3. Hedlund advised Plaintiffthe EGFPD and Polk County
SherifPs Office kept no 'Chain of Evidence' documentation and there was no
further documentation to provide Plaintiff- including no 'Record of
Examination' for the search of his hard-drive.
U. CITY OF EGF INSTITUTIONALLY STALKS PLAINTIFF - TAMPERS WITH

EMPLOYMENT _ SHREDS FEDERAL DOCUMENTS DURING OFFICIAL
AUDIT _ GETS PLAINTIFF FIRED FROM ANOTHER JOB
102. In January of 2}!4,Plaintiffbegan a part-time job with Five Star

Enterprises performing janitorial duties at the National Weather Service (NWS)
building in Grand Forks, North Dakota. PlaintifPs agreement with Five Star
included a long-term plan for Plaintiffto utilize his sales and marketing
background to build a client base for Five Star in the Grand Forks metro area.
Once enough cleaning facilities were contracted, an office was to be rented for a
public storefront and operated by Plaintiff.
103. PlaintifPs income change required he alert Kim Nelson, the housing
program coordinator assigned to his housing assistance (HUD) file at the East
Grand Forks EDHA office, which he subsequently did.
104. During Plaintiff s in-person meeting with Kim Nelson at the EDHA
office, she pointed out to Plaintiffthat Karen Lukasz, also an EDHA housing
coordinator, is married to Michael Lukasz, who works at the NWS building where
Plaintiffwas beginning his janitorial job. She also pointed out that Karen Lukasz
and EDHA Director James Richter had been engaged in an extra-marital affair.
105. There is substantial significance to the fact that James Richter and Karen
Lukasz were aware that Plaintiffwas beginning a new job at the NWS - where
Lukasz's husband worked. It is significant because during this very time period,
the EGF EDHA came under an audit. The audit of the EDHA was essentially a
forensic investigation into the bookkeeping practices of James Richter and Karen
Lukasz and revealed serious problems.
106. The fact the EDHA was being audited is significant and relevant in
regards to Plaintifi because between 2012 and20l4, Plaintiffreported criminal
activity he encountered and uncovered as an investigative journalisVauthor. He
reported information to the FBI, United States Attomey, Minnesota Attomey
General. Minnesota State Auditor's Office. Minnesota Bar Association. etc.
1.07. On 08/18/13 Plaintiff reported on www.writeintoaction.com the headline

'IRS to audit City of East Grand Forks?' The lead paragraph said, "Un-confirmed
reports indicate the IRS may have been alerted to inegularities commonly viewed
as red-flags by federal investigators. The inegularities on the check-list are
believed to include altered documents and known affiliation with Organized
Crime". \
108. On Decemb er 8,2}l3,Plaintiffreported the City of EGF to the Minnesota
State Auditor. .
109. In January of 2ll4,Plaintiffbegan his parttime job working for Five Star
Enterprises as a janitor at the National Weather Service (NWS) in Grand Forks.
Plaintiffwas required to submit to a federal background security check conducted
by the Office of Security for the United States Department of Commerce. In the
interim, Plaintiffwas required to have aNWS employee escort into authorized
areas of the NWS building when he was cleaning.
110. Not long after Plaintiffbegan his janitorial duties at the NWS building,
Joe Armstrong, Five Star Enterprises, contacted Plaintiffand said Jeannette
Ringuette, their mutual Point of Contact at the NWS facility, had been
complaining about Plaintiff.
111. Plaintiffwent online and provided answers to all the questions for the
background check and submitted them, along with various required references, to
JosephLubin, securityspecialist, OfEceof Security. PlaintiffusedKimNelson, a
housing specialist at the EGF EDHA/HUD office as a reference to verifu his
physical address. Plaintiff used Kim Nelson because she was assigned to his HUD
file.
112. In the interim, Plaintiffcontinued to perform janitorial duties at the NWS

. building. Joe Armstrong contacted Plaintiffseveral times and said Jeannette
Ringuette continued to make complaints about him.
113. As of 04/30/14 PlaintifPs background check still had not yet been
completed, which seemed like an inordinate amount of time to complete an
employment suitability check.
tI4. On04l30ll4 the Grand Forks Herald reported "$510,000loan to EGF goes
unpaid for 10 years". The scandal erupted as result of an audit. It was the first
story in an emerging series regarding a scandal surrounding a company called
"Boardwalk Enterprises" and banks loan(s) that were not being re-paid - rather-
effectively- and curiously- documents (e.g. Mortgage) were disappearing from
the record.
I15. On 05/01/14 Plaintiffwent to the EDHA office and asked to speak to Kim
Nelson. Upon sitting down, Kim Nelson advised Plaintiffthat she had received
the address verification form from the Office of Security. She advised Plaintiff
that her supervisor had instructed her to not send it back to the Office of Security
' and rather; shred it; which she did. When Plaintiff asked Nelson why her
supervisor didn't want her to return something as innocuous as an address
verification form she said "because they don't fuckiirg trust me".
116. On 05/01/14 Plaintiffemailed Joseph Lubin at the Office of Sec-urity and

told him Kim Nelson had not sent the address verification form in. Plaintiff
advised Lubin that Nelson advised she would do it ASAP.
ll7. On05l02ll4 Plaintiffemailed Kim Nelson and expressed the belief that
somebody in the EDHA office might be trying to sabotage his employment.
Nelson responded and said she believed her boss became nervous because the
letter was from a federal agency, and, that because she was working from home .
on medical leave at the time, her supervisor could not see the document, which
made her supervisor'hervous" - so her supervisor ordered her to shred it.
118. Plaintiff was concerned because Kim Nelson had previously told him that
Karen Lukasz was associated with the NWS facility through her husband,
Michael Lukasz, who is an employee at the NWS.
119. Kim Nelson also told Plaintiff that James Richter would often use his
position to target HUD applicants that he didn't like, and would instruct her
(Nelson) to make bogus findings and false medical determinations on
applications. She said James Richter had no respect for rules or laws and would
do whatever he wanted.
l2O. Kim Nelson told Plaintiffthat James Richter had been in the paper
because money disappeared again. She said he had done that before in the past
and stated he always gets away with it. She said "Karen Lukasz" was the
'bookkeeper'.
121. On 05/08/14, only one week after Plaintiffpointed out to Joseph Lubin
that his address verification form had been held up; PlaintifPs security check went
through.
122. On a date between 05108114 and 05121114, Jeanette Ringuette, approached

Plaintiffas he was exiting a secure room at the NWS facility. Plaintiffwas
accompaniedbyNWS employee David Kellenbenz. Ringuette said "your
clearance went through". She was overtlyrude and abrasive. She said
(sarcastically) that PlaintifPs clearance had been througlr for about "two weeks".
She angrily said, "I told Joe (Armshong)". However - her claim to have told Joe
Armstrong was simply not true.
lZ3. Ringuette had deliberately neglected to tell Plaintiffhis security check had
passed and that he had been deemed suitable for employment. The fact pattern
shows that during those 'two weeks' Ringuette had been pressuring Joe
-. Armstrong to terminate Plaintiff.
124. On05l2lll4 Plaintiffreceived a call from Joe Armstrong. Armstrong said /
he had been receiving complaints from Jeannette Ringuette. Armstrong said

Ringuette told him Plaintiffhas a'website' and has had 'problems with the
police'. Armstrong said he believed Ringuette wanted him to fire Plaintiff.
Plaintiffadvised Armstrong during that call that Ringuette recently claimed that
she had told Armstrong his (PlaintifPs) security clearance had passed, and
claimed he (Armstrong) had known about it for two weeks. Armstrong said that
was absolutely not true. He said Ringuette had never told him. Ringuette was
lyrng.
125. On 05/30/14 Plaintifffiled a formal complaint to the City of EGF

regarding the EDHA's deliberate failure to respond to his address verification
request and subsequent shredding of a federal document. On06112114 EGF City
Administrator David Murphy released his findings of the intemal investigation.
He found James Richter instructed Kim Nelson to shred PlaintifPs address
verification form. Despite finding that Richter ordered Nelson to shred the
document; Murphy then found th6 document was shredded in "error". SEE
E)GIIBIT S
1.26. On06112114 Joe Armstrong called Plaintiff. He said he talked to Ringuette

on06110114 during a site visit. Armstrong asked Plaintiff if he'ivore his uniform
to work. He asked Plaintiffif he came to work looking like he Just got out of
bed'. He asked Plaintiff he if 'tucked in his shirt'. He said Ringuette was still
trying to get him fired.
127. On07105114 and 07106114 Plaintiffwas at the NWS to shampoo the carpet
with a commercial cleaner. He sent photos of the completed cleaning job to Joe
Armshong. Armstrong said it looked real good. He said he would be fonvarding
the photos to Ringuette.
128. On0710711,4 Joe Armstrong telephoned Plaintiff and said Plaintiff would
be haining in an altemate at the NWS facility. He said Plaintiffwould hain the
alternate for one week and then resume regular duties alone. During the call,
Armshong and Plaintiffalso discussed their previous drangement to develop
futwe Five Star contracts in the Grand Forks area, which Plaintiffwould /
supervise. Plaintiffand Armstrong did prospecting and research tolether on the
Web while on the telephone.
129. On07l70ll4 Plaintiff had eye surgery and could not work. Plaintiffwas
driven to the NWS facility by his daughter, Marina Holmseth, so he could arrange
for the new alternate ernployee (who spoke limited English) to have a NWS
employee escort him througlr the secure areas. While discussing this with NWS
employee Vince Godon, NWS employee Michael Lukasz (husband of EDHA
employee Karen Lukasz) came into the room and called Plaintiff a "total
- Scumbag".
130. On0Tlll/1.4 JoeArmstrong called Plaintiffand told him he had no choice

but to terminate him. He said that Jeanette Ringuette had gone to her superior
(believed to be interim NWS supervisor Greg Gust) and continued to complain
about Plaintiff. Her superior (presumably Gust) then contacted the corporate
office of Five Star Enterprises in Kansas City and complained about Plaintiff.
Armshong said if he didn't terminate Plaintifl Five Star Enterprises would not be
recorlmended for any federal contracts and their company couldn't take that hit.
V. THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANZATION ACT

(zuco)
131. Facts and circumstances clearly show Defendant(s) are in violation of

RICO.
132. East Grand Forks, Minnesota and Grand Forks, North Dakota are river
cities and their Chamber of Commerce is combined. Ronald Galstad, the city
attorney for East Grand Forks, Minnesota, sits on the Executive Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce.
133. The refusal of EGF city officials to discuss Ronald Galstad's official role
at the May 7,2014 public (closed door) meeting held at his private office to
discuss Boardwalk Enterprises strongly indicates Defendant City of EGF is
covering up serious organized crime.
134. On0812512014 I reported the activities of local officials to federal

authorities.
Timothy Charles Holmseth

320lTth StreetN.W. , '
Unit 17
East Grand Forks, MN
56721
218.773.1299
218.230.1597 (cell)
In'Re: Disaster Relief Fraud / Money Laundering
0812s12014
Denis J. Mclnerney
Chief. Fraud Section
Timothv Charles Holmseth

&
32O l7- StreetN.W
Unit 17
5672r
278.773.1299'
218.230.rs97 (cell)
tholmseth@wiktel.com
In Re: l4-CV-2g70 (DWFILIB)
September 8,2074
:'
slKT
U.S. Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
STE2O2
Minneapolis, MN
s5415
Clerh
Please acceptmyFlRST AI\{H$DED COMPLAINT

i
Please make special note that a Defendant has been added and needs to be served-
Michael Norland. Iprwiously zubmitted l\fichael Norland's information for service by
the U.S. Marshall's so you should hlve it on file.
Respectfrrlly submitted,
f imothy Charles Holmseth
RE$h'}{FD
20ilt
SEP 1 ts
,,'-$i,vfi JiFltlslnn',?u*
lL( cu L'i)O
uxh
I
A-tr
X
FI
--\,
at,l,
AV\!
'-^.:i x\
rt oo$6
\}.'- .-<S\U-'Nr$
-r, v -7LI-
/u\-r r\\r,r
ocT - 3 2014
From: Kim picazio fmaiito:kim@picarioiaw-comj

Sent: Thursday, January L6,ZOL4l,:01
AM
To:'mpicazio@aol.com'
Subject:
You stole my dead grandmother's

Enough. I'm contacting the bank
*aB z
.€sbo-a,6t$'
'_-trr**.rt
*Ubr<Fry
qatk
SdtL
(sL l att --rl ic -i I id tL

J I ;rl :( j4r i tcr r'rtlr:tt, i.ildv
From: Kim picazio fmailto:kim@picaziolawromf

Sent: Monday, January LO,2O\Lj.1:02 AM
Subject:
, Mike, the S1,0@ check you put in last week bounced. I have no
fucking words.
Kim L. Picazio, Esquire
Law Office of Kim L. picaziq pA
One Firrancial plaza
100 Southeast Third Avenue
Suite #250O
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
Tel: (954) 467-5559
Fax: (954)402-133S
Email: kim@picaziolaw.com
This e-mail is intendeci oniy for the inciiviciual(s) or entity(s) nameci

within the message- This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidentiat information- tf you properly
received this e-mait as a
client or retained expert, please hotd it in corrfidence to protect the attorney<lient
or work product
privileges. Should the intended recipient fonvard or disclose
this message to another personor parh/,
that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege- tf the reader of
this message is not
the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited by
the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electrorric Communications privacy
Act, lg
U.S-C- section 2510-2521_ lf this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion.
Please notify us by repty e-mail and detete the original message
without reading same- Nothing in.this e-
mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the
sender.
Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein,
including any
attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used
by any person to
avoid tax penalties, and are nol intended to be used or referred to in any marketing
or promotional
materials
From: Kim Picario [maitto:kim@picaziolaw.comJ

Sent Tuesday, November24.2@g 10:19 AM .
Subject: Bounced Deposit
We bounced the two $12 checks for the chitdren's school pictures, as your last gl.,00o
deposit at the
Pafm Air branch ontU76 bounced-
Llhgl2ffig Other DEPOSITED ITEM RITURNED FEE $ro:OO s773.06

tuLg/2009 Other DEpostrED ITEM RETURNTD $1,OOO.00 s783.06

Law Office of Kim L- picario, pA
One FinancialPlaza
Suite #2500
Fon Lauderdale. Florida 33394
Tel: (954) 467-ss58
Fax: (954)462-1335
---Original Message---
From: kim@picaziolaw.com [maitto:kim@picaziof aw.com]
Sent: Friday, Ap'il23,2010 9:23 AM
To: mpicazio@aol.com
Subject: THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Account ActiviryAccount FREE BUS CHK *.L|7t
Posted Batance U/ZZ|2OhO : (52,7 6g.t}l

* Avaifabfe Batance
as of 04123[2010: (52,769.7O)
Transactions for: FREE BUS CHK *L577
04122/?.:070 Other NsF FEE FOR |TEM oo33877O'jOOO,S25O-OO

AUTOMATED DEBIT IRS USATAXPYMT S35.OO (52,769.701
MlzUzOIO Other OVERDRAFT FEE

TRANSACIoN(S) Ar 53s.00 s35.OO (52,734.70)
04/2L/20L0 other DEposrrED rrEM RETURNED

55,000.00 (52,599.70)
MlzolzoLo other TRNSFR zwom47g1.s64 a4lza s4,4fr'..oo $2,:oo. :o

04/2O/2O7O Deposit TRNSFR 2@0044791 564 M.lzO S:OO.OO 56,7 64.30
a4/L9/ZO7O Other ovERDRAFT pROTECTtoN S4o.oo

s5,464.30
O4lLg/2O10 DepJsit COUNTER DEp S5,Cr0rO.O0 56,504.30
o4/75/2OrO other UNAVAil-ABLE FUNDS FEE
L TRAN5ACTION(5) AT S3s.oo g3s.oo ir,soo-ro
o4/L5/2oLo other DEposrrED ffEM RETURNED s2,ooo-oo

s1,539-30
a4/L5/2OLO Orher DEpoSrrED lrEM RETURNED S3,OOO_@

S3,539.30
M/75/2070 Deposit couNTER oLp st,z67-so s5,539.30
o4/14/zOLO Other AUTOMATED DEBtr tRS usATAXpyMT g25O.0O g5,27r_80
O4/74/2OIO Deposir TRNSFR zAWO44TsrS.s4 M/L4 SSOO.OO gs,521.80
o4/L3/2O70 Other TRNSFR 1010243792614 O4l1.3

S50O.0O Ss,021.80
o/'ltSl2oro Deposit couNTER DEp ss,0oo.00 s5,521.80
O4/O9{2O1O Other TRNSFR 20O0044791s04 O4lOg

$500.00 Sszr.eO
From: Kim Picazio [ma ilto:kim @ picaziolaw.com]

Sent: Saturday, March 24,2OL23:19 pM
Subject:
l just checked my bank. your g4O0 deposit

bounced
From: Kim Picazio [ma iho:kim @p icazio law-com]

Sent Monday, March OZ,2Wg 1t:S4AM
To:'mpicazio@aol.com,
5ubject: ATT Pmt
Mike:
Icalled AT&r and they said you made a telephone payment by

credit card for your office tetephone
account (tel. number 954-590-2102) on Februa ry 25,2o09- This payrnent
was made by tetephone by
you' But you didn't remember this? You took most of the funds from
our personal checking account
that I had just transferred in from my business account to pay our remaining
househotd bills. I had
scheduled bill paymenB on our account that wilt now be returned if you
do not reimburse these funds in
ouraccount todayTo CLEAR BY MIDNIGHTTONIGHT. NoTToMoRRoW
NIGHT. I tried to cancet the
scheduled bill payments that I had spent over an hour inputting
the other night in the hospital, but they
cannot be cancelled, as they are atready in the system for payment.
tr vru;r! eo"nl J"',nt, shi! you
need to let me know so I carr tell you whether there are funds
available to pay for our household, and
your business' too- You did this last week, on wednesday,
but you never said a word. This was not an
accident because all wachovia business debit cards are silver,
not blue- Thanks a lot, Mike-
Kim L Pica:iq Esquire

Law Office of Kim L. picazio, pA
One FinancialPlaza
1OO Southeast Third Avenue
Suite #2SOO
Tel: (95a) 467-5558
Fax (954) 452-t335
---Original Message----
From ; Kim picazio [ma ilto:ki m @ p icaziolaw.com]
Sent: Friday, October OZ,Z@g 3:04 pM
Subject: RE: Money
The available balance is still in the negative 3,734-22. so I

am unable to make credit card payment on
mv ojce phone or.cell phone- They were declined. I have
, pay Tutor Time. t do not have enough money to do
to pay sylvia forthe last 3 invoices. I have to
that. And I don't have a dime in our personal
account to spend over the weekend- I have four dollars in my purse
after giving stelta my last g20 this
morning to go out with Manya today. what do you suggest I
do this weekend for money forfood, gas,
etc'? what do you expect me to do about my emptoyee I need

to pay, and my office phone and celt
phone? | have been paying aii expenses for the kids
anci now have no money left. \
From: Kim Picazio [ma ilto:kim @picaziotaw.com]
Sent: Friday"October OZ,2@g 3:13 pM
To:'mpicazio@aol-com'
Subject RE: Money )
You need to put the 1,140 back in the account today- I

do not have the ability to write sloan,s tuition
check' I am not writing another check to the school that I don't have
money in the account for- we are
late again to Tutor fime, and t"n not writing the check until
the rnoney is in the bank. Replace the
rnoney you took out of our account that was earmarked foi
Stoan's school, Mike- put the money back.
From: Kim Picazio [maitto:kim@picaziolaw.comJ

Sent: Tuesday, october 05, 2oog 1o:1g.AM
.To:'mpicazio@aol_com'
Subject:
Mike: we had several mes$ges ftom a -Nitki'on the home voicemail-

she is from Ferguson
Enterprises. Number 786-2&'7032,frle#2ffiL46- She said she had
spoken with you severaltimes, and
you had broken several promises for payment. she said you
walked out of the store with merchandise,
and gave them a bad check She said that you would be reported
to their attorneys, and that what you
did was a felony, and they would be pressing criminal charges,
since you had nottaken care of the bad
checlc Mike, WHATNOW?
Also, I iust got a call from. my Morn- she wants her money
back from the floors. you have had the -
money since early April to installfloors, and you gave her a drop
dead promise that it woutd be done by
the end of Sept. still no floors, and no money- You won't tet anyone
speak with 6arrett, the guy you
said you gave her$16,000 and she said she does not believe you
evergave him the money- lf you won,t .
let me speak with Garrett, maybe you should put my.Mom on
had it and thinks you've lied to her. That you spent the money
tr," phone with himf"r." ;;;;- il:;'
she gaveyou to help us out-
The orthodontist called about the check I gave them that you
took ail the money out of the account and
it bounced. so they have been notified that the check borrnced-
The school's casino night is this Saturday- we never

RSVP'ed because we didn,t have the Szs to send in.
So we're not going to the School,s 6ala, I guess-
scon called and wants to know when.l'm putting in the ca5h for
the bounced check lgave him due to
you taking all the money out of my bisiness account. t
didn,t answer the phone-
lf you won't sit down with me and make a plan of how we,re going
to handle thi5, I don,t know what,s
going to happen. We have nothing left. We have lost
everything_
ilK{i
Kim L Picazio, Esquire

One Financial ptaza
Suite #2500
Fort tauderdate, Florida 33394
Tel: (954) 467-s559
Fax: (954) 462-tZ3S
--€riginal Message--
From: "Kim L. picazio,, <kim@picaziolaw.com> ;
Date: Tue,29 Mar 2O11 12:53:02

To: Picazio Mike<mpicazio@aol-com>
Reply-To: kim@picaziolaw.com \
subject Re: I
$zao plus the expenditure from Home Depot. Remembei steila's

I
B-Day party is this Friday afternoon till

6pm' Also coming this week to be paid: t have to get Stetla's I
Birthday limo paid for and reserved on a
credit card, stella's Softbalt registration fee ($rt5 dr"
toa"y practice). stoan,s schoot tuition on the
rst (s786), Sloan's Dance tuition (536-via auto debit), stellais "t
remaining party fee ($899 - s25o already '
pd as dept), Sloan's school pictures (for
bounced check or she can't take her school pic tomorrow gLTg
which includes fees), Rocky's Dry Cleaner (via auto
debit 5250 approx), fam health insurance premium ,
$no\, sloan's camp Registration fee at TutorTime (S75); stelta's softball pics saturday (?), Camp
Highlander (deadtine Aprit 1st - ssoo arready paid),
Sterfa's warkathon thing (s120 you and me), steila,s
Bday presents (S ?), Stetta's Bday cake (approx
* Paid last week ATT 5100)
u-Verse for home phone, tv, DsL (S73s), auto insur (S7zz),new
famity health
insurance premium for May(S992), old doctor
bilt for sloan- colfection agency hitting my credit report
every month (S+ss1, gioceries (S45o)- Your most recent
check forS1,30o was retumed. That makes 3
checks returned in my new Regioni accts in the past
month (55,000, 53,500, S1,3OO). HELP.
-*--Original Message---__
From: Picazio Mike
To: Picazio Kim
ReplyTo: Picazio Mike
Subject; Re:
Sent: Mar 29, 2011. g:01 AM
I mean what bank. City national. How much_

--Original Message_ ___
From: Wife
To: Office
ReplyTo: Wife
Subject: Re:
sent: Mar 29,2017 890 AM
The only one I have there. The pA Acct. Do you need acct number? I'd have to get
it from Christina at
the office.
---{riginal Message----
From: Picazio Mike
To: Picazio Kim
ReplyTo: Picazio Mike
Subjecu Re: i
Sent: Mar 29,z1!17:5g AM
Yes. What account.

Message---
---Original
From: Wife
To: Office
ReplyTo: Wife
5ubject:
Sent: Mar 29,2OLI7:54 AM
I have a tax pmt due torright coming out citiNational. Can you put funds in there today which
will be
ava ilable immediately?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: mpicazio@aol.co m [mailto:mpicazio@aot.com]

Sent Friday, August tq,z}:^2 r2:3O bM
To: Wife
SubjecH Re: Wachovia Account 1010073791199
Fuck You Kim

Sent on the Sprinto Now Network from my BlackBerrye
From: "Kim L. Picazio" <kim@picariolaw.coni>

Date: Fri, 24 Avg2O7216:32:27 +O00O
To: H usband<mpicazio@aol.com>
ReplyTo: kim @ picaziotaw.com
Subiech Re: Wachovia Account 1010073791199
You are unbelievable, Mike. And let me guess, all of the other hundreds of bogus
checks you,ve written
to me, and others, were innocent mistakeg too. you can't be honest if you ,\
tried.
From: mpicazio@aol.com
Date; Fri, 24 AjugZOIZ16l.29:52 +0000 r
To: Wifeckim @ picazio law.com>

ReplyTo: mpicazio@aol-com
Subject: Re: Wachovia Account 1010073791199
That is my mistake. I'm gtad you caught it. I thought I gave paul a Regions check. I am living out of boxes
in the office right now and I made a mistake.
Sent on the Sprinto Now Network from my BlackBerryo
From: "Kirn Picazio" <kim@picaziolaw.com>

Date: Fri, 24 Aug2Q72 7i:35:34 {4OO
To:' Mike Picazio'<mpicazio@aot.com>
Subject: Wachovia Account 1010073791199
The check that you wrote to our repainnan that I personally signed for an invoice for a service calt is
below- Just stop lying, butlshitting. Do not even bother coming to this home
tonight.
lii' uri! l
[lJ; i:t.5
fiT
t: #tt t7a
:
lg ii ':l:r-" Li:
;-- F: i
21 :! -., i
"t
:o "q,: { f
9\l
lo ti
;!
IA \.r
.._l
I t!.
i3'
!3.\.
ii$1
r l'.\
I
r c(l
!
i* it.\t<
i
t:
'lr
f.!
1 r.J
t ,iil ' i.l '

!i :l.F tn
t =JI ::
-2 6
I -A
Ir
From: Kim Pirazio [maitto:kim@picaziolaw.com]

Sent: Tuesda% January 12,ZOaO 9:33 AM
To: Daddy
Subject:
Another check from a closed account, Mike? what the fuck is wrong with you?
Really. What is wrong
with you?! They are considering closing my accounts- This is number three from
one of your closed
accounts- This one was from Allstate Pumping I believe. You've tried that
old check book several times-
That one was one of the ones that got rny Eank of America account
shut down and closed.
You need to emailor fax to me your last statement from that account- you
lf don,t have i! for whatever
excuse you think up, you need to get the bank on the phone wirh me
and veriiT that account is stitl
open. I am just blown away by you.

One Financial Plaza
10O Southeast Third Avenue
Suite #2500
Tef; (954) 467-5558
Far (954) 462-7335
From: "Kim L- Picazio" <kim@picaziotaw-com>

Date: Fri, 24 Aug2OL?LS:27:tg +0O0O
To: Husbandcmpicazio@aol.com>
ReplyTo: kim @picaziolaw.com
Subject: Re: Closed Account ,
He had the check firom you, and I asked to see it. I wrote him a valid
check. I called wells Fargo and no
account of that # is in existence. No account in your name period is in existence. you
should be ashamed
of yourself- You'd screw over that repairrnan like that? Risk going to jail for writing checks from an acct
that'd been closed for years? For 946 dollars?
From: "Sam Wolstencroft" <controller@coralridgeyachtclub.com>

Date: March 22,ZOLZ, t0:15:35 AM EDT
To: <m picazio@aol.com>
Subject: Coral Ridge yacht Club Statement
Dear Mr. Plcazio--
The Finance Committee met yesterday and discussed sending your account
to the Fraud Division due to
the check that w:ls presented and then the account was closed making the check to be returned
by our
bank- | would really like to avoid doing this, but my hands may be tied- please
calt me or e-mail me and
maybe we can work something out.
Sincerely,
Sam Wolstencroft
Controller
From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim@picaziolaw.com]

Sent: Thursday, January J"6, ?OL4l:03 AM
Subjec[
You stole Lulu's checkbook? You are

signing her name to her checks on her closed trust account??????
Oh my God, Mike- Return the checkbook immedi5teg.
KIM L PICAZIO
Anorney at Law
Law Office of Kim L picazio, p.A.

One Financial plaza, Suite 2O24
100 S.E. Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdalg FL 33394
Telephone: (954) +62-SSS8
Farc (9S4) 457-MTI
Email for 5ervice of court documents: Lawoffice@picaziolaw.com
This e-mai! is intended only forthe irrdividual(s) or entity(s) named within the message- This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidential information. you
tf properly received this e-maitas a
client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect
th" attorn"y-client or work product
privileges' should the intended recipient forward
ordisclose this message to another person or parqr,
that action could constltute a waiver of the attorney<lient privirege-
tf the reader of this message is not
the intended recipieng orthe agent responsible to detiver
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited by
the sender and to do so might constitute a violatiorr of
the Etectronic communications privacy Act, Lg
U-s-c' section 251G2521. lf this communication was received
in error we apotogize for the intrusion.
Please notiry us by reply e-mail and delete
the original message without reading same. Nothing in this
mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attomey-client e.
relationship with the sender.
Discfaimer under circul ar z3o: Any statements regarding

tax matters made herein, including any
attachmentt are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot
be relied upon or used by unip.r*n to
avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred
to in any marketing or promotional
materials.
From: Kim Picazio lmaitto:kim@picaziolaw.comJ

Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:25 AM
To:'mpicazio @aol.corn'
5ubject:
The Bank is registering the SgO0 you put in the bank.

t am at a +67 in my business account. S€ott wants
his money for the rent- what is the status of you returning
that money to my pA account that you took
out [A5T THURSDAY.
lo
rrvrrrlEu (lld( dtly revlew. olssemlnatton. rtic?rihnfinn ni rnnrrina af rhia raaa.ra!^-r:-- :- -

Law Oiiice of xim L. picaziq pA
One Financial plaza
Suite #2500
Tel: (95a) 467-s558
Fax: (954) 462-1335
Email: kim@pica:iotaw.com
From: Kim picazio lmailto;kim@picaziolawrom]

SenU Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:29 AM
To:'mpicazio@aol-com,
Subject: TutorTime
Mike: You took out sl,ooo on Friday that was earmarked for
Tutor Time,s check- | had the bank
account waiting for that check and you took out the money.
That is why the check bounced.
Transactions fon CRWN BANKING .2614

Date
I ype
Description
Withdrawals
Deposits
Balance
L1,/09/2W9 Other
7UO9/2OO9 Purchase
NSF FEE FOR rrEM OO0O0oooo253,
$8OO.OO $:s.oo s1,063-62
's1.,098-62
PURCHASE WANNADO ENTERTAINM 11./07 511]..30
n/A9/2ffi9 . 'Check View
CHECK 254 Szgo.oo s1,209-92
It/09/2OOg Deposir DEPOSIT EAST ATLANTIC BLVD 7L/AS*NAT SLooo.oo
s7,499.92
7L/09/2OO9 Deposit tt/07
TRNSFR 2oo&47grs64
S40O.0o 5499-92
LL/0612OO9 Other S1,0OO.OO
COUNTER WTH
599-92
7L/OS/2W9 Other Sr,soo.oo
TRNsFR 2Ocf,M47gts647UOS
LL/O5/20O9 Deposit couNTER DEp sr,ogg.gz
g2,500.00 s2,599.92
1UO4{2W9 Other TRNSFR ZOO}O44TILSfilIUO4 SZ,3OO.Oo
LL/04/ZOO9 Deposit TRANSFERRED FROM ++*.**f*'rO6G9 Sgg.gz
$Z,3OO.OO
Sz,zgg.9z
7uo2/20o9 Purchase puRcHAsE puBUX supER
MAR 3400 N 10/30 s428.30
seg.92
77/O2/2ffi9 Other COUNTER WTH Sj.,850.00 SS2g.z2
LO/3O/2cp9 Other TRNSFR 101020244361610/30 S5OO.OO s2,378.22
LO/Z9/ZOO9 Purchase PURCHASE PUBLTX SUPER MAR 14j.5 L rcng
SZO.09
s2,878-22
lo/29/2oo9 Purchase puRcHAsE oFFrcE DEpor
oFFrcE oEp ro.i28
)\
Kim L. Picaziq Esquire

One Financial Plaza
1O0 Southeast Third tVenue
Suite #250O
Tel: (954) 467-ss58
Fax: (954) 462-1335
From: mpicazio@aol.com [mailto:mpicazio@aol.com]

Sent Monday, Novembe r 23,ZOOS 5:01 pM
To: Wife
Subject: Re;
It should be. Bring copy and t will payand call fed ex.
Sent via BlackBerry byAT&T
From: Kim Picazio <Kim@picaziolaw-com>

Date: Mon, 23 Nov ZOOS L3.42:59 {gO0
To: mpicazio@aol.com<mpicazio@aol.com>
Subject:
Ithought the Federal Express issue wasfxed- This is not fair to me- t have no money
to pay this.
Kim.L Picazio
KIM L. PICAZJO, ESQUIRE

The law Office of Kim L picazio, pA
One FinancialPlaza
1@ Southeast Third Avenue
Suite 25O0
Tel: (9sa)457-5558
Fax (954)462-1335
kim@picariolaw.com
From: Kim Picazio [ma ilto:kim @ picaziotaw.comJ

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 20o9 1f.:26 AM
To:'rnpicazio@aoJ.com'
Subject:
))-
YoU'RE DOING ALL YoU cAN Do? You could have done more a long time
to.
-
You call me every day, snarling and cursing at ME? You are mean,
ago, but you have refusecj
spiteful, and completely
disrespectfulto me. Let's not forget who has floundered around and has made our lives a living
hell
month after month, naively waiting for third parties to act, when they have never
acted before_ tt's like
someone betting on winning the Lotto. lt never happens, but you keep waiting
to pay your debts until
you strike those winning nurnbers. All the while, week
after week, month after month, you let your
household lose it all, shrivel away. you scoff at demands by your Wife to trim your
budget, get rid of
unneeded toys that continue to add scarring marks on our credit and drive us deeper into
debt- you
refuse to let them gq as week after week you play those lucky numbers? And when your
wifg ,rr""r,
at you to stop playing the Lotto and just make some changes to save your famiiy, you
brush off this
blatantly reasonable Jdvise, only to continue to play, week after week.
,
' This is a tnatter of being responsiblg
reatistig witlirrg to tighten your belt and survive when the going
gets tough. You have continued this idiotic waiting garne that everyone
else can see if asinine, except
you' But in the meantime, the boat remains at a slip ?t the Cove, it has not been
repossessed, no one
has asked you to get your boat out for nonpayment of the slip, and Ryan gets
a weekly paycheck. And
all the while, that Whaler sits there in the drivewayr we have two timeshares we
can,t pay for or use,
and you've got a hot rod in the garage? My mom was kind enough to give you
the tast bit of money to .
finishtheflool3attheHNhousetostopthatbteedingpig-thatwasinApril. Andyouwon,tevenalow
me to speak with the floorguy thatyou altegedly gave the money to ask forthe
money back? And you
yourself have not gotten thet much needed
516,0@ back yourself, which could have saved our ass and
put food on our table? We can't even borrow money from the house cause you
can't get it together
enough to get your tax returns in since zo0d?t Give me a break! you have a family
thal depends on you
to be a responsible adult, not to piss our assets aio future away, while we beg for you to stop
the
bleeding. You continue paying upteen employees while t have had to let go every iingle person? you
smirk at me and ask me what t did last week? I made 54600. That's what t did, t
canit send out the
newest round of bills because I don't have postage. That check to the postage
company bounced the
last time you drained all the money I had earned out of our accounts. Along
with the child,s daycare
tuition check, which bounced for the sirth month straight, after you drained alt the money out
of the
account and didn't put it back for over ten days- Oh l'm sorry- you did put it back_ But
- the
replacement checks either bounced, or were writen off a closed account. l,ve had four
checks from you
that bounced coming out of a closed account. And remember the promise to me that you,d bring
me
the statements to show me that the account wasn't closed? over one rnonth ago? Still waiting
on that,
too.
The arrswer to your question is NO. You have rrot done alt you can do, alt you
should have done- your
irresponsible delays have gotten us here. Your blind belief in dickheads that have
never come through
foryou, but you still happily wait on them to give you a loan. Instead, you should have sold
off the toys,
gotten the HB house done, burned the midnight oil untit those tax returns got finished,
etc.. etc. you did
nothing of the sort. Yes, YOU did this. I am borowing money from my moiher for
ThanKgiving dinner.
Hope you're still satisfied with the way your handling things.

Law Office of Kim L Picazio, pA
One Financial Ptaza
)3
Suite f2500
Tel: {954) 467-s558
Fax: (954) 462-13Z5
From: mpicazio@aol,com [mailto:mpicazio@aol.com]

Sent; Tuesday, November03,2009 2:14 pM
To: Wife
Subject Re: Re:
It will be there tomorrow as a transfer (casnl. This is not pathetic.

This is cooperarion between spouses-
Love You
Husband
From: Kim Picazio <Kim@picaziolaw.com>

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 20Og LO:24:41 {g0O
To: m picazio@aol.com<mpicazio@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Re:
I received a check from Rrpn on Friday after 4:00. I didn't put

it in the bank yet- I do not have enough in
my business account over the S2,5oo from Ryan to cover the rent.
t have
been paying
literally
everything forthe house and kids from my business account. I will have
to have funds from you. I do
not have a secretary and still am unable to pay the temporary agency for
the past four weeks, you
promised, Mike. This is pathetic-
From: mpicazio@aol.com [mailto:mpicazio@aol-com]

Sent: Tuesday, November03, 2OO9 I:2ZpM
To: Wife
Subject: Re:
I took it friday and it will be there tomorrow moming,

Your rent was covered through your business ant
the money from Ryan- The 18o0 was for the school etc ti will be there
tomorrow, transferred as cash.
From: Kim Picazio <Kim@ picaziolaw.com>

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 20O9 10:15:54 {gO0
To: m picazio@aol.com<mpicazio@aol_com>
Subject:
lq
Did you take Sl',850 out of the account yesterday? I have no

money to pay my ren! Mike! we atso
cion't have any rnoney now to pay Sloan or the other kids' schooi
tuition- you have to put that money
back in the account, Mike - please!
Kim L. Picario
KIM L. PICAZIO, ESQUIRE

The Law Office of Kim L picaziq pA
One Financialplaza
Suite 2500
Fort lauderdale, Florida J3tg4
rel: (954) 467-5s58
Far (954)462-1335
kim@picaziolaw.com
From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim @ picaziotawcom ]

Sent: Tuesday, September2g,ZAAS G:17 pM
Subject Checking Account?
Mike, I put S50o in our personal checking account from my pA on Friday

last week to save up rnoney for
Sloan's school tuition due tomorrow. ljust went to online banking
to transfer the additional funds to
cover the check for'Tutor Time, but see you took out all of the money from
our checking account today
from a Pompano Beach ATM. what is going on with you? I had put
a little money in there last week so
we would have enough. Now you took out every dime, and teft us with
S41.OO in the account?! what
the heck is going on here? I don't even have enough rnoney to go get sonny's hair
cut and buy a slice of
pizza at the mall with the kids with
S41.oo?l t am at a loss for words on this one- Even when I am trying
to put money in our account to pay for our kids, you take it.
From: "Kim L. Picazion <kim@picaziolaw.com>

Date: Tue, L7 Aug2010 1g:12:52 +OOOO
To: Staubs Billccaseclosed@bellsouth_net>; ANDREWS pAULA<paula@paufaandrews-com>;
Husbandcmpicario@ aol.com>
ReplyTo: kim @picaziotaw.com
Subject: Re: lnsurance Check
Idon't know if Mike owes you money or Santa claus owes you money. Lou I just
wanted to confirm this.
|figured it was a joke, and am glad we got it aired out- You know me, t'm
by the book, and steer ctear of
even the appearance of impropriety.
The reference to Jeretniah in your emait was discouraging and deflating.

I am not in a ncontinued affair,,,
and have explained that very personal subject to you. That comment was
tota[y uncalled for and
5
unnecessary, Bill. You would not appreciate me telling people about personal
issues you have told me
about your relationship with Paula, anci I sureiy would not intertwinethat
very personal info in an email
regarding other business matters. That sucks that you woutd write rhat in your response
to me. l,m sure
Paula was blind copied on ig as welt. I am embarrassed and humiliated. tf
that's what you wanted to
accomplish, you succeeded. lt makes me not want to deal with you at alt if
everything is fuir game to
you, with no recognized, customary borders between personal issues, and
all else. So since I'm sure
Paula has read the info in your email, l'll send this one to her as well. I
am sick of this, Bill- Just leave it
alone, please. This isn't some "get ya back" contest. lf you want, I'll declare you the
universalvictor, and
we can alljust move on. Good, good-
-klp
From: Cobra <caseclosed @bellsouth.neo

Date: Tue, L7 Aug201O i.3:3g:12 e4OO
To: Kirn Picazio<kim @picaziolaw.com>
Subject Re; lnsurance Check
Kim- Mike and I were bullshitting as usual. There are no real fees or whatever
between us your
responcibiliry is between you and five star and Paula. But you did say you
were taking me for a steak.
Mike and ltalk as you and I do. lt would be like me asking mike if you were leaving hi} for-terimia
based
on your continued affair- Anyway our bullsthit sessions are private but no one else needs
to know_ As to
milke and me he said he would give me my money owed from past horse
trading ftom the insurance
money as he had none at the time- 5o that is that. Be well
Cobra
) On nug L7,zOLO,at 1:12 pM, ,'Kim picazio" <kim@picaziotaw.com> wrote:

Paula:
t'm b bit concerned. Bilt left a voice mail for Mike yesterday asking whether Mike
was going to make
good on his promise for tCffof the proceeds of the insurance
check. Mike has no idea what Bill was
talking about. I don't want there to be any misunderstandings or drama, her*,
but fert compeiled to
write you both about this. lfs my understanding that Frue Star is getting the
contractually agreed upon
percentage, cotrect? Mike and I have not made any other promises
or guarantees, personally or
otherwise' outside of the contract with FiveStar. I am hoping the voice mail was a joke,
and we can put
his thing to bed.
we have never offered to give Bitl, or anyone else, anythin gfrom, or for, this insurance claim. Mike
has
said he has never discussed anything like this with you or Bitl. I haven't either. This
was a legitimate
insurance claim, handled by Five Star. lam very uncornfortable with this,
as you can imagine. I am
copying Bill on this email so that there is no misunderstandings, and we can get
on the same page. I am
not interested, nor would I ever engage in any paybacks, hidden deals, findels fees,
etc., and Mike isn,t
. either. Again, perhaps the voice maitwas in jest, and I am freaking out for nothing. Let me know.
Thanks so much, Paula.
Kirn L Picazio, Esquire

law Office of Kim L- Picazio, pA
One Financial Plaza
Suite#2500
Fon tauderdale, Florida 33394
Tef: (954) 462-5558
Fax: (954) 462-t335
This e-mail is intended only for the irrdividual(s) or

entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidential information- you
lf properly received this e-mail as a
client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect
the attomey-client orwork product
privileges- should the intended recipient forward
or disclose this message to another person or parq/,
that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. lf the reader
of this message is not
the intended recipient, or the agent responsibte to deliver it to trre intended
recipient, you are hereby
notifred that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying
of trris communication is prohibited by
the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic
communic'ations privacy Act, 1g
u'S'c' section 251G2521. lf this communication was received in
error we apologize for the intrusion-
Please notify us by reply e-maitand delete the original
message without reading same. Nothing in this e-
mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney{lient relationship
with the sender.
Disclaimer under circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters
made herein, inctuding any
attachmentt are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon
or used by any person to
avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in
any marketing oi promotional
materials '
From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim@picaziolaw.comJ

Sent: Wedneday, January OS, Z0j.1g:0g AM
Subject:
After buying Eas yesterday, I have 556.00 in my business account- t do not have
money to clear that
5zg5 ctreck for the Clerk of Court- | need funds.in the account today- we have to pay Stoan,s
school. I
need funds to replenish my account from the holiday, Mike. This is
builshit. I have no money- T6irl;
totally unfair- You need to borrow from yourgrandmother or something. what
the heck is going on
with you? Realty? obviously your bitls and employees have been paid at your offiice,
at least to survive.
I am not living like this anymore, Mike. lt is beyond
anything t have ever heard anyone going through.

One Financial Plaza
1O0 5outheast Third Avenue
Suite #25OO
Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33394
Teh (95a)457-55s8
Fax (954) 462-1335
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named

within the message- This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly
received this g-rn3;1 ,, ,
client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protectihe
attorney<lient or work product
)l
privileges- Should the intended recipient forward or disctosc this message

to another person or pafty,
that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-ctient privilege. lf the reader of
this message is not
the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this cornmunication
is prohibited by
the sender and to do so might constitute a viotation of the Electronic Communications privacy
Act, 1g
U'S'C' sectio n 2SlG252t, lf this communication was received in error we apologize for
the intrusion.
Please notifo us by reply e-mait and delete the original message without reading
same- Nothing in this e-
mail message shall. in and of itself, create an attorney-ctient relationship
with the sender.
Disclaimer under Circular 23o: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein,
including any
attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used
by any pe6on to
avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing
or promotional
materials
--Original Message--
From: mpicazio@aol.com [mailto:mpirazio@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 0g, ZO1L 2:41 pM
To: Wife
Subject: Fw: Me
Don't need the drama- Keep that shit for someone else. Just explained the
situation, its a yes or no
answer (very simple). stop with the fuckin constant attitude and condescending bull
shit. you may talk
staff, sisters or young boys that way but not me- when I get money you wilt be happy
fo and able to
have a civilized conversation.
6o ahead and tell the kids that I can't afford5OO bucks.
You need to take a deep fuckin breath, Kim.
- .--Original Message__-_
From: mpicazio@aol.com \ '
Date: wed, g Feb 2011 1g:33:40

Wife<kim @ picaziolaw.com >
To :
Reply-To: m picazio @a ol.com
Subject: Re: Me
- FUCKYOU.
--. Original Message__-.
From: Wife
To: Office
Subject: RE: Me
Sent: Feb 9,2O1L2:32pM
Pay a bill at your home for your family. [xplain the situation to the kids-
)3
Tellthem you don't have 5500 bucks to your name. l'm done hearing
this "not avaitabte tilltomorrow,'
bullshit-
---{riginal Message--
From: mpicario@aol.com [mailto:mpicazio@aot.coml
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 t:03 pM
To: Wife
Subject: Me
I know you are busy, tried calling- I spoke with att. They
wilt take us off cash only under the
circumstances. They willturn us on with a debit card payment o,t 47land
change- I don,t have that
atrailable until tomorrow- Do you have a card we can put it on? I willgive
it back to you tomorrow in
cash.
From: "Kim L. Picazio" <kim@picaziolaw.corn>

Date: Fri, 4Mar 2OLLZO:4O:31 +000O
ReplyTo: kim @ pica'ziolaw.com
Subjecti Re: Porsche Insuarnce
okay' we'll talk when you get home. tjust have too many major expenses coming
out of pA. I don,t care
where its paid from, but its a lot, and t need some hetp with otherthings at the house
if this is coming
from PA- we just need to sit down and map things out like this- That's ail-
From: mpicazio@aol-com
Date: Fri,4 Mar 2011 13:45:27 +OO0O
To: Wife< kim @ picaziotaw.com>
ReplyTo: mpicazio@aol.com
Subject: Re: Poriche fnsuamce
I do not expect you to pay insurance out of your business- Porsche

is going on Geico next week. we are
covered for fiat 30 days automatically under current policy.
From:'Kim Picazio" <kim@picaziolaw.com>

Date; Fri, 4Mar 201107:59:@ -05@
To: <mpicazio@aol.com>
Subject Porsche Insuamce
Mike, t iust checked the Geico insurance website and the Porsche isn't listed
on eur Geico policy, They
just took out anotherautomatic debit from my business
account, which is S7g4.Lsa month- The car! on
the policy are the Hummer, Mercedes, and Lu,s car- Mike, this is a lot of money.
I can't afford this all by
myself. when the Porsche goes on the policy, it will be over a thousand
dollars. Anyway,l'm just
worried about the porsche being uninsured. what policy is the porsche on?

One Financial Plaza
Suite #2500
Tef: (954) 467-5558
Fax: (954) 462-L335
Email: kim@picaziolaw-com
.
This e-mail is intended only for the individuat(s) or entity(s) named within
the rnessage_ This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidential information. tf you property
received this e-mail as a
client or retaind expert, please hold it in confidence to protectihu
or work product
privileges. should the intended recipient fonvard or disctose this "tto-"y-ctient
message to another person or party,
that action could constitute a waiver of the attomey-client privilege. lf the reader
of tnis message is not
the intended recipient, or the agent responsibte to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication prohibited
is by
the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications prirrary
Act, 1g
u's'c' section 251G2521. lf this cornmunication was received in error we apologire for the intrusion.
Please notifo us by reply e-mailand delete the originat message
without reading same- Nothing in this e-
mail message shall, in and of itself. create an attorney-client relationship with
the sender-
Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, inctuding
any
attachmentt are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by person
any to
avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any ma*eting
or prornotional
materials
----Original Message. .--

From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim@picaziolaw.coml
Sent: Frida% November IZ,Z:OLO 5:06 pM
Subjecr RE:
Mike, I am on the line with wachovia, My accounts are still frozen, and I am freaking
out. I am holding
for the rep from Wachovia on the other tine.
FUCK CVCryONC EISC, iNCIUdiNg GATY. YOU DID NOT
PUT MONEY IN THE FUCKING BANK AND MY
ACCOUNTS ARE STILT FROZEN?I THE I.ADY CANNOT BELIEVI YOU TOLD HER
YOU WERE GOING
STRAIGHTTO THE BANK AND SHE 15 'FLOORED' THAT SHE SEES NO
MONEY ]N THERE. t am tucking livid!
She also told me that she has a total of 4 checks by you that were returned, and that it looks like you
are
"kiting" checks. She also said she cant believe you woutd put me, an attorne% in this position.
Those
WETE hET CXACT WOTdS. WOULD YOU STOP PAYING ATTtNTIoN
To EVIRYoNE ELSE AND GITYoUR MISS
;o
STMIGHT WHICH IS AFFECTING MY FUCKING BUSINESS!!I!!!!!!!!ttt!!!

MY CHECK TO THE PHONE GUY
FoR BRIAN'S PHONE lS BEING RETURNED - Check fl 92 from account rs77. I have
employees to payl
How the fuck could you do this to me???ll!!!!l!!!!!!t
From: mpicazio@aol.com [mailto:mpicazio@aol.com]
Sent: Friday. November IZ,ZOLA4:3G pM
To: Wife
Subject:
I am at the memorial for Garys girtfriend.

Sent via BtackBerry by AT&T
Message--
-Original
From: kim@picaziolaw_com
Date: Tue, 16 OA 2OL2 t2'.tO:4J
Reply-To: kim @picaziolaw-com
You've got to put money in my account- tts important. Don't let me down.
Sent via BlackBerny by AT&T
- -Original Message----
From: kim@picaziolaw.com
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 j.5:09:25
To: Husba nd<rn picazio @aol.com >
Reply-To; kim@ picaziolaw.com
We need money for groceries ASAP. I don't have anything more for Sloan's lunch tomorrow,
we are on
week #4 with promises from you of bringing S to Perta for groceries- We need food in
the house-
Sentvia BlackBerry by AT&T
From : Kirn Picazio [ma i lto:kim @ picaziolaw.com]

Sent: Friday, December t4, ZOI2 9:19 AM
To:'Mpicazio@aol-com'
Subject:
Mike, you have not deposited any money this week into the account. ljust saw that check you
made to
the lraquoy Nation for Sszs.oo. Also. you had me file that lawsuit for you, knowing I had literally no
money, and still have not given any money for that either. You didn't give any money for groceries,
household bills, or tuition- You need to deposit the money that you asked me to front for you
this week:
525 (lndian Princess) + 431 (Silverman filing fee). Also, you totd me you were going to put
sorne money
in prior to today so I could fund rny employee holiday bonuses, payroll, rent, bills, etc.
since I've spent all
a\
of my income on funding our household bilts. I have nothin g. zera. I rreed money today- The office
pafi and payroll is today. My rent was due on the first, and I will receive a 200 late fee today.
Kim L. Picazio, fsquire
Law Office of Kirh L picazio, p.A.

One Financial plaza
Suite f2024
Fort tauderdale, Florida 33394
Tel: (954)467-5558
Fax: (9Sa) 4674477
Direct Ernail: kim@picaziolaw.com
e. Prod uction Em a il: lawoffice @ picazio law.com
-----Original Messag*---.
From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim@picaziotaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, Januany L6,2Ot4 1:09 AM
'
Subject 2010 Refund Offset
I iust saw this tax notice. You received our tax refund check for 2O1O?! Where is the money, Mike? We
were'goingto pay the children's school tuitionsl where is the money!!!
From: Kim Picazio [maitto;kim@picaziotaw_com]

SentWednesday, February tT,ZOLO 9:12 pM
To:'rnpicazio@aol.com'
Subject:
l'm a bit confused and shocked thatyou will not pick up the phone and speak with me. ljust got your
text.
I am extremely ftustrated with you, and think you have not treated me, or this fumity,
with any
level of involvement or attention. On top of that, I cannot even stomach any more mishaps regarding
mon'ey. lf you deposited the check, you need to get the deposit slip, lam screwed financialty because
this check is not in my account- 1 will bounce checks to the Clerk of Court for clients, rny new secrerary
etc. I just cannot handle this crap an)rmore.
I was expected you to tell me that you were going to make every effort to get organized, and start
tackling the issues such as taxes, our foreclosures, household bitls, etc. one dt a time. tnstead, you write
me a text as if you are ready to get a divorce, That was not irr my mind, t can tell you. I wanted you to
take this night and get your head on straight, and come back to me with some game plans for our
family. Some realconcrete game plans that you actually intend to stick with. Our house is half torn up
from the new room and other shit, the Harbor Beach house is a disaster, we owe everyone in the world,
and I don't even have a singte dollar to give the kids for the Raffle tickets, I am jhocked that you have
something more permanent in your rnind. lf that is the case, you let me know- That is not in rny mind. I
was so pissed at this money shell game, again, that I didn't even want to speak with you today.
I want
you to get your shit together so we can get our fumily and our home back in order- No
matter what
2a
you've promised in the past, you have not come through on a single issue- And now look where we
are-
we have kids to raise and a family to enjoy- lf you're so resigned to walk away from this family and our
home, you let me know. That was not at all what this evening was supposed to be about. I haven,t even
told the kids that you're not gonna be home tonight. t was figuring you'd come in the morning to pick
them up. I was also figuring you'd have a fresh mind, and a new found incentive to get our home in
order. lf that's notwhat you intended, l'rn just shocked and disgusted.
You need to call your Wife and discuss this.

Law Office of Kim L- Picario, PA
One FinancialPlaza
10O Southeast Third Avenue
Suite #2500
Tel: (95a) 467-55s8
Fax: (954)452-1335
Fro m: Kim Picazio [mailto;kim @ picariolaw.com]

Senl- Tuesday, November tO,2OA9 9:S5 AM
Subject:
Mike, iust so that you realize what happens rnonth after month, you put in two deposits so far this
month. One for 51.,000 yesterday, and one for 2,300 last week. But in the same time period, you took
out counter withdrawals of $2,850, to be spent on other things outside the household. your total
deposits have been therefore been SasO for the month for the home, after you took the money that you
deposited. I have paid the cable, tetephone. maids, groceries, take.out Sonny's birthday tickets for
Orlando, speed passes and the hotel, kids expenses like costumel school photos, etc. I have deposited
S2,900 into our home account, and have paid other home bilts from the funds I recerVe from clients in
my PA account- I have had to let my secretary go, and her previous wages remain unpaid. t recently
paid over 5200 of your businesd federal express charges from Winn Dixie sending things ro you on my
PA account. Fed Ex had shut me off. euill has shut me off, and t am on my last black printer cartridge
and ream of paper. I have no postage in my postage meter. My Lexis account will be shut off any day,
as I owe over St,30O. My Martindale Hubbell listing as a lawyer has been terminated. They just sent me
a certified letterthat my profit sharing loan was declared in defuuh- | owe the SZ0,0OO, ptus another
512000 in feel penalties and taxes., My cell phone is scheduled to be shut off- The dry cleaner has half
my clothes forwork since he remains unpaid. We don't even make a mortgage payment, and haven,t
for years. We have no car payrnents. None of my bitls are paid, and I do not even have a credit card.
None- The kids are not in any extra iurriculars. You have promised to bring home your books so we
could go over them together to see what could be done- Tliat was four weeks ago. you promised to
bring me the 1G99's since you haven't gotten your corporate taxes done since 2OO4, and t could then
a3
stop breaking the law by filing a personallax return on my own. I gave you the 1099's to bring to the
accountant- He doesn't have them. You haven't brought them to me and l'm unable to file even rny
own tax return despite hate mail l'm receiving ftom the lRS.
tnough. I have asked us to sell something, put the house on the market, trim expenses, or do
something to trim eipenses so we did not go irrto financial ruin- you won't save us. I do not hotd it
against you for being in a dry spell. However, when things take a turn, you need to make changes in
life
to prevent your family from financial and emotional ruin. You sell the big house, get rid of the boats or
other items that can keep you afloat.
We have sunk' My good reputation with nearly everyone I deal with has been destroyed. I am
humiliated, embarrassed. Everyone I have ever had a long relationship with l've bounced check after
check- Our kids school tuition remains unpaid, wdve bounced three checks to their orthodontist, and
they were supposed to have another appointment this week. I was unabte to pay the outstanding
balance, and therefore skipped the appointment. I have two month old contacts in my eyes that are
making me have headaches all day, but can't afford to go get more. My eyegtasses prescription is not
current so I have no glasses Everything in our home is fatting apart. and our kids need uniforms for cold
weather- Sonny doesn't have a pair of sneakers that fit him- Life insurance has lapsed, health insurance
is who knows, I haven't been able to get a check up or a papsmear or a mammograrn for two years due
to insurance companies not getting your check or applying thern correctly- I have shown you the black
thing on my lip- That scares me to death but I can'tget it checked without insurance.
lnstead of making changes, stop gap measures, or keeping things afloat, here we are. I arn so ashamed
and angry. These are things that wilt permanently affect me, you and the kids.
Klm [. Picazio, Esquire

Law Office of Kim L- Picazio, pA
One FinancialPlaza
L00 Southeast Third Avenue
Suite #25OO
rel: (954)467-5558
Fax (954) 452-L33s
fror,I
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2O10 17:30:2a +0000 (UTC)
To: <kim@picaziolaw-com>
Subject Re: appointment
Hi Kim: Let me start out by saying that t have always admired your intetligence and I think that you
can
be (and are) a powerful force when you want to be. However, I have been telling you for years that I
have been concerned about your self-sabotaging. You are an advocate for all men and women who are
weak and cannot take care of themselves. However, when it comes to yourself, you seem to ignore the
most important issues in your life that truly affea you. I hear you when you say that you want to be
able to work with and trust Mike and that you should not have to protect yourself from him. That said,
given the past four to five years and your experiences with Mike not following through. Seeing him
"robbing Peter to pay Paut, borrowing money from your family, not payirrg bills and so on. ln my mind, I
can't forthe life of me understand why in God's name you would put 9e00O dollars in his hand and sit
back for forty days listening t6 excuses about what is happening with the account. I am not blaming you
rather I am desperate to get you to finally hear what I am saying to you, you set yourself up, in a way
you set Mike up by allowing him to have control over that "lotro money" when you know full well his
problems- You know iull wetl his history and allof his desperate efforts to keep his head above water.
As a therapist and as someone who really reallygives a damn about you, t need you to know that I am
very concerned because you seem to be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results- Unfortunately, what ends up happening is that you are hurt in the end. ltyou are
doing this sort of thing with Mike, you will continue to do it with anyone you decide to be with, all at
your expense. I am hope that I can continue to work with you and that you will stop telling me that you
are fine because what you just allowed to happen is not "fine" in my eyes- t hope that you take this as it
is intended, from a person who cares deeply about you and your famity.
I
From : Kim Picazio lmailto:kim @picaziolaw-co m]

Sent Wednesday, January A4,2OL2 9:25 AM
To:'mike @cht-services.com'
Subject Regions Personal Account Ledger
I just want you to s€e where we at. The only deposits made into this account were electronic transfers
from my PA account, as reflected on this ledger. Check #276 wasto Mlritza the houseke eper. #27Swas
to westminster for our final payment toward Stella,s school Sea Camp trip; and s273 was for patricia,
the housekeeper. The paypal expenditure was to obtain the two orbeez spa sets for Christmas for the
girls- The Amazon purchases were of course for Christmas. They refunded us some money for items
and shipping costs for items that they could not get to us.
westminster's tuition payment will be coming out of this account tonight.in the.amount of s1,5g5.46.
What would you like to do? | have a new client coming in at 1,1:30 today for an initial client conference-
She is a friend of Valerie's. I do not know if I will be retained, or if this is just a consultation. What
would you like to do about the tuition for westminster. we did not get the girls' report cards because
we have not paid for their hot lunches at school.
Date
Type
Description/Category
Debit (-)
Credit (+)
Ledger Balance
oLlo3lz0Lz CARD
MINDWARE +BR 5945 529.95 s19s.00
ou0312012 CARD
ROCTCy S SUPERKL 72L6 5179.28 s2Z4.9s
01/03/2072 CARD
PUBLIX SUPER M 5411 5329.82 s40l,23
ou03/2ot2 TRANSFER
a5
EB FROM CHECKING #O12672L228 $500.00 S734.os

L2/28/2077 TR.ANSFER
-
EB TO CHECKTNG 80126727228 S1OO.O0 5234.05
1?,127/20L7 CARD
soHo FAsHtoN GA 5999 533.90 S334.0s
L2/27/2OLL CARD
AMAzoN MKTPLACE 5942 Ssr..zz Sg6z.gs
t2/271207L CARD
AMAZON MKTPLACE s942 iOq.ga g4L9-77
. 12/77/207r CARD
Amazon.com 5942 555.38 S484.U
12127lz0r1- CHECK
CHECK#276 S30O.OO SSs0-49
72/2il2olr ELEC CRDT
Amazon.com 5942 SZ.4S Sg5O-49
L2/27|2OLL ELEC CRDr
AMAZON MKTPTACE 5942 53.79 5S4S.O+
7217712077 ELECCRDT
' Amazon.com 5942 55.47 S8r. -ZS '
72127/2OLt ELTCCRDT
Amazon.com 5942 55-48 5838.78
r2/2U2OtL ELEC CRDT
AMAZON MKTp|SCE 5942 Sg.zL Ser:.so
72/27/2011 ELECCRDT
AMAZON MKrptACEsg4z 513.09 $AZa.Og
7212il2OL7 ELEC CRDT
AMAZON MKTPLACE 5942 5rg.SZ 5811.00
L2/27l2OrL ELECCRDT
AMMON MKTPTACE 5942 Srg.eo S79L43
t2/2712O71 ELECCRDT.
Amazon.com 5942 SZ6.y S771.S3
],2/23/2011 CARD
PUBLTX SUPER M 5411 St2.4S 5745.29
L2/23/2OLL CARD
Amazon-com 5942 515.47 S7S7-74
L2/23/ZO1L CARD
AMAZON MKTP[3CE5942 SLA.U SZtt.Zt
12123/2017 CARD ,
Amazon.com 5942 527.99 $ZAg.0g
L2/23l2OLt 'CARD
sEpHoRA#456 Fr 5977 S4L-57 Serr.OZ
L2/23/2OXL CARD
AMAZON MKTP|ACE 5942 $4s.95 5853.54
72/23/207r CARD
RrGtS HAlRSTyLt7?30 SSq.g s903.49
72/23{ZOLJ. CARD
cpcrcAFEpREss.csg6g Sgo.ge S9s8.1G
L2/23/zOLt CARD
J6
AMAZON MKTPLACE 5942 567.58 S1,ot9.L4

12/23/2OLL CARD
Amazon,com 5942 5114,48 5L,086.72
L2/23/20rL CARD
AMAZON MKTPTACE 5942 SrZO.gg s1,201.20
72/23l2OtL CARD
AMAZON MKIPLACE 5942 SrZO.SE 91.,321.56
12123i207L CARO
AMAZON MKTPIACE 5942 SrZS.gZ st,M2-09
1,2123/2071 CARD
AMAzoN MKTP|ACE s94z $rcs.tz 51.555-46
t2/23/2O17 CARD
AMAZON MKTPLACE 5942 5rgS.8S 57,734.78
72/23/20tt CARD
suNGLAss Hur 6 s999 5243.78 sr.,928.06
r2/23l2OLL CARD
PUBLIX SUPER M sa1l $csg.zr s2,!7r.W
72/2312O7t TRANSFER
[B TO CHECKTNG # 01,2672L228 s1,000.0o s2,630.5s
7212312077 CARD
APPLE STORE #R5732 S1,351.O2 5g,ogo-ss
72[22/2017 CARD
STK*SHUTTERSTOC 7333 s4,981.57
12/22/20LL CARD
MINDWARE *BR 5945 539.95 s5,oo0-57
t2lzzlzoLL CARD
HoT ToPrc 060z s699 9158.68 55,040.52
72/22/2017 CARD
sHow& DECO, tN 5631 s180.00 s5,199.20
r2/22l2uLt TRANSFIR
tB FROM CHECKING #OI2572L228 s2,000.o0 s5,379.20
,12/2u20a7 CARD
pAypAL'THAHApRA g999 917-9G Sl,gzg.zo
72l2u2oLt CARD
MINDWARE'r,8R Sg45 S2g-95 53,397_15
luZrl2OLL CARD
MINDWARE 'BR 5945 529.95 $3,a27.tt
,2lzUzOrL CARO
NAK pRoAcIV K s399 573.09 S:,qsz.o6 /
L2l2L/2o7L cARD
pAypAL'sMBEcKg 8999 Sres.ge 53,530_15
r2l2v2,t7 CARD
AMZ*Cafepress 17399 5207.00 S3,7t6.Ll
72/ZU20LL ', CARD
MINDWARE *BR 5945 SZrS.rS 53,923.11
L2|2L/2O17 CARD
A&F#10928 2570 5691 Sile.ls 54,L38.25
;)
||VLTVVAKT ?r..r..
nu I luPrL ubo/ 5b99 51 S* 6R
12/21./2077 CARD
PGI'TYOUN6 EXPLO 5964 5il4.L8 S4,45s.00
72/27/20]''1 TRANSFER
EB FROM CHECKING #0726727228 Sr,ooo.oo Ss,099.18
12/27/2A1L ELECCRDT
PAYPA( VERIFYBANK
S0.12 54.099.18
72/2t/2O17 EIECCRDT
PAYPAL VERTFYBANK
$o.tt 54,099.06
t2/20/20tL CARD
MTNDWARE *BR 5945 949.95 54,099.89
LZ{aOIaOLL CARD
CHUCKSSTEAK HO 5812 5128.60 54,148.84
L2[2O/2O1L .CARD
www.KoHLs.coM #5311
51.5s.28 54,277.44
12i20/2011, TMNSFER
EB FROM CHECK|NG iO726727228. s2,000-00 s4,432.72
72(ZO/2O77 TRANSFER
EB FROM CHECKING #OL2672!228 s2,001-00 s2A32.72
L2[L9/,ZAL7 FEE
MoNTHLY FEE S10.oo S43t.7z
72/L9/2OLL . CARD
MINDWARE'8R5945 5385-85 5uL.72
L2h6/20LL CARD
LUSOGOURMETSS12 512.60 5827.s7
12/76/2OtL CARD
GRAMPAS BAKERY 5462 Saz.so 5840.17
12/76/2071 DEBTT
621 LFs GRO A INVESTOS21
s100.00 s882.97
L2h6lzOLL CARD
PUBLTX SUPER M 5411 5299_75 Sgez.gz
IUL6(aOTL TRANSFER
EB FROM CHECKING #0726721228 Sl,zoo.oo 57,282-72
t2/7412O1L TRANSFER
EBToCHECKTNG#ol267zLz28 S70o.0o s82.72
12/09/2071 CARD
PUBLIX SUPER M 54I.1 s1o3.s4
s752.72
72/08/2077 CARD
APL*APPLE ITUNE 5735 S1.99 s886.s6
72/05/2017 CARD
WALGREENS 23555912 S7s.81 S8ss.55
12106/2071" CARD
PUBLtx sUPER M s411 Si.l1.13 s964.36
aE
rv...rr,rYY,{'\c on )v.r) )J6>.u5 \4d1 72
'a
72/a6/20LL CHECK'
CHECK #275 $475.00 s1,075.49
72/06/20rt cHEcK
cHtcK #273 56OO.OO 51,550.49
L2|O'(aOLL CARD
ATT'B|IL pAyMEN 4899 5309.57 sz,rso.ag
L2/O5/2O17 DEB]T
WestminsterAcad FACrS
Sl,58s.q6 52,460.15
r2/os/201l TRANSFER
EB FROM CHECKING I0L2672L228 S5OO.O0 54,045.62
12/05/207L TRANSFER
EB FROM CHECKTNG #OL26727228 Sr.ooo.0o Sl,sqs.a2
12/OS/2O3,L TRANSFER :
EB FROM CHECKTNG 10726727228 S2,1OO.0O 52,5q5.62

72102/2077 CARD
ROCKYSSUPERKLT216 S3M.5O 3443_62
72/Ot/2011 CARD
KfrwrN s5441 s50.57 5750.12
From: Christina Abinader [maitto;christina@picazio]aw.coml

Sent: Tuesday, February ZB,ZOl24;27 pM
To:'Kim Picazio'
Subject: Mike Returned Checks
Here you go.
Z:\KtP\MIcHAEL
Christina Abinader
Legal Assistant to
Kim L. Picazio, Esq.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 2024
100 5.E. Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (95a) 467-5558
Fax (954) 467-M77
e1
Fo 38 :6:2 it?i tflE lAt A Gf,i! la.5:rtrJtl I trrrG,

.d*tt
&Ft* .4
Irci-$'J d.abr#.
F9drlFrd!.d
r.A!gF(ffiED
l
ru |
I
'^"
E !
fa
Li--.r---....-
l. brna
**.r"*"n
o0 [r
I
Q' I
OF
€a I
EE
cr ct
ru
tr:OE?Oitq??.: itlOl\gtlreBla /OO00iOOoOD/
30
3.iii i.r * i.; toaa, tgr (e|t$

*J-.__--
'fh
b-tot
<ejp
.:ea!Oge?6.
33t5ii#ii cLoSnED#lccouMr .rhrr+trhdBb
"i$H:fi.:'ftFi'
'*.4
l'.""if*ltf",li-i
',-?!:F4-_i:-
r0O | 55 tr t6DE?oeeoIrc . otiicgireliar /coooi 20LSW
ft{{bbq
I'C g- U.4 tii € c; '
9ffiffi'
*-. -.fr;J*t o:^"" _
-&n *J 4* I"nU nt,
F(lt)Lo 5 Ir Lr:oB?oo 198 sr! 1599O9?r!:r /OO0O3SaA i i
UN LOCATE ACCT
- Do r,J.i Rcdetcir
3)
-E l: -:1r_:r:!.
lii a r.',i r, :d zF (6@
.t.t:0O00tr,
iitiSitg*
tr.rCC[Clt
tEfUtt iEl3or-f
UtrAill;6 trgg^;t
cc?
^
,Oo lo33,r do6mt (, iactctsa a rccar&
FOO lO 3 S' r.r:06?oqrc?er: onqoglrBslg6r.

roouulBo0tru/
=-. ur.rrocFFaeun
-}.--3"1.-""r*/
F|v
re
re
ffiRrnlElll5ry't'sa1|€E
5a aEi_ I
a
i=:==s=ieEre:eE
E-5bE
€A G.,ljtr dul,i-; -+s Id . n3E. Cdd
rfoEirEstBS? fBouo isD000/
.....q_
.t?et s?.rtt
.- ,drztt zoLz
llllatde6r *db
lHler.qrdd?Hd
,i:
it\ r rr. rtcrr cr 'ts6dtErlt-*
""il'rt,o.iltTi;I't91'" t ,&,-D rbdbtt
toE--rra r.r
aJrglral
rrrur!
lk-'
<h.al-
t
F -i,;s-l
rglsgrr-1 #
ur.gLE JrrL.r.i{
#
g
I
.-l
no,a
idl*
I
.sq€f
55il9r]13',L H
'XrtrlEGAr€tJp ruP:-
€E6|Dl*h n::a^.-
*'"_"h..f+ 3tJ I
EruRil Rrrs'il-F *g i
3).
r*ryb .)\
i '*aq-ru- d*.,.--:'
tb-qFdau.6r.y
l..s.ibq*r!e
t
rgolrlgf Lr:o;?oq 2u e?c
From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim@picaziolaw.comJ

Sene Thursday, March OL,ZOL29:1S AM
To:'mike @cht-services.com'
Subject:
Ijust transfurred my last dirne: $2500, into the personal account to pay for Westminster
tuition, Rocky
the dry cleaner, and ATT U verse. I do not have money for payroll tomorrow- t don't have money for my
rent lRS payment or any of my office bills and I will have services shut off next week. I don.t have one
single dollar.
From: Kim Picazio [maitto:kim@picaziolaw.com]

Sent: Friday, Jvne 22,2012 8:58 AM
To:'Mike Picazio'
Subject:
As I was saying before vou f,,/ng up on me, I was just humiliated by the pool man, who said he,d
been
servicing us since December, and you'd only paid him 5300. He was at the end of his rope, and it,s
my
understand you know him personalty. He called his Wife at the pooloffice and she said we owed
$1,g40
total. I wrote him a check for 51,0o0, and promised to get him paid up. He said you keep saying you,re
going to leave money for him, and have told him you are waiting on a big
setttement coming at the end
of the month- Really? What settlement, Mike- I also paid about g80o on all of Stella,s camp stuff,
and
33
some summer shoft etc- for stoan. Then you went to a

bar on Las olas to watch the Heat game until
midnight with "customert'" aiter I stroked the funds
for dinner at olive Garden. t also paid both maids
last week, and sent Patricia to the grocery store for
over s5o0 this week. l,ve paid forsonny's books,
taken Stella to the orthodontist, tended to your lawsuits (as
have my staff), done the camp shopping
paid all but Ss6oo of the 514,00o for GffiF,
send in a[ of.the camp forms, paid forsonny's school fees
and the entirety of his school tuition, paid for all the westniinster
tunches (l still owe $ooo in fees they
are hounding me for), pard for sonny's surnfier cours€, paid foryour
hotel roorns at pelican cove while I
stayed here to work, and just reserved the rooms at our yearly family
trip to the Biltmore {totaling
$1,210), paid for Stella's orthodontist, Sonny's lA Fitness membership, all of
the famitfs cellular phones
(except yours)' paid ATT uverse for the tetevision,
home phone, and DSL for the family, paid for the dry
cleaner, car insurance for 4 vehictes, health insurance forthe
entire family, etc. etc. tim still waiting
that ssoo for the lawn rnan you told me you needed in a pinch
when he was standing at the door. you
promised to put the cash in the bank, but that
was on May 28th. Nearty one month ago, and you
couldn't even do put in a lousy $500. you totd me would start contributing
something to the househotd
bills, but nothing has come- You've put in tess than
S25oo in our bank for our household biils for the
entirety of the year 2012- we all pay for dinners here and
th6re, but there are ctearty bilts that need to
be paid for household bills and home services- I pay for most restaurants,
entertainment, such as my entire Mother's Day trip to the race
food, ;;-;;
""d and
track. This is terrible, disgusts me- |
feel like I am being taken so advantage of, and being treated
unfairly. you pay your business obtigations
first, then have rnoney for cocktails
lf you make no income, for so many years, we have both agreed

you would do something else. There,s
always some "deal" or new 'business' around the corner that you
tefl me is going to save the day. lt
never does- You also said that you'd be gettinB in consistent
income when the dump opened. Agbin
nothing' You seim not to care that I am struggting in my business -
because of your lack of ability to
provide funds for our family- You have put so
much pressure and stress on me, you make me feel like
everything is riding on me- t do not feel a singte shred of confidence.that
you will come through, or be
there to pay tot anything. I am simply funding your tife, your luxuries,
the children, the house,
everything' lf there's anything left, t get to pay for my business the
simply do not make enough money to cover all of this. I
- onty one that is generating funds. I
iust can't believe that you can love someone,
and treat them this way- At some poinf you'd feel so som/ for
them that you.ve put so much on their
pfate, or have driven them'into the ground
n hard,or burdened them to such a level, thatyou,d step
up. Youhavenot. lwanttosell thehOuseMike. youarelikenoonel,veevermet,orevenheardof.
I
have waited, hoped, stood by you, supported you- You
do nothing to support me. you take away
everything I build up from my own hard work, as fust as I
can build it. At this poinq your destruction is
at a faster pace than my build up- | can't make enough money
fast enough forour home obligations,
and continue to do business. You suck everything from me-
so now, once again, I sit there humiliated
from the pool man- Again, you craim that you've paid him more,
but you didn,t- you didn,t, Mike. you
take services, tell me you're paying for thern, and it is a
big fut lie- Then I get the knock on the door, and
stroke the check. You stomp and spew syrng you already paid,
but it's all buttshit, Mike- T;;;;;il;;-
once a month, foryears- last week, I found out our name was
on the "Hall of shame'at the yacht club_
lwanted tb disappear- Again, you act outGgedf and claim there
was a mix up. Again, we had talked
about that outstanding billover a month ago, and you said you
were handling it. And again, it wasn,t
handled, and our family's narne went up on the wall of Shame
at the club where hunoreos of peopte
know us, me, you, and our children. we are dirtbag non payors.
t woutd pay that bill, too, like I did last
year (over 56,000 outstanding balance you never handled,
and our membership was suspended). Again,
I have spent my life, and continue to spend rny years,
trying to be upstanding and have a solid social
and fumily repwation in this town lgrew up in- You continue
to tear me to shreds, embarrass me, leave
>')
)
everyone unpaid and claim to have some bullshit settlement coming in, or stocks to liquidate,
etc. Do
you realize that no one needs to wait for a "senlement" to have
5300 in their pocket? you sound like a
complete asshole to people that you don't have the ability to give them a few hundred bucks for
services they already performed foryou? Who doesn't have a couple hundred bucks,
and needs to.wait
for a "senlemenf? No one that t know, you know, or all these people have ever dealt with.
Do you
even have a bank account yet, Mike? You are a father of three kids. you don't pay for them. you go
to
sleep every single night on the couch after you eat dinner. You don't finish any project at
the house.
our shelves are still missing from the family room projectyou started 3l/2 yearsago. The pool man
said he told you we needed new grates for the pool drain, that they were sharp and dangerous
to the
kids. Did you forget to tell me that? were you waiting for your settlement forthat, too? you deserve
nothing- l'm at a level of outright love or sheer hatred for you. And those emotions are evening
themselves out pretty quickly. I suggest you get a courrselor appointment because l, too am at the
absolute end of my rope. You have no conscious orphame at how you're living, or what you do to rne,
your wife. lf t were you, l'd look in the mirror everyday and just cry. on second
thought, rro I wor.rldn,t.
I would have changed a long time ago, when I saw that I couldn't support
my fumily, and I was lying to
everyone lcame in contact with, and t had borrowed the life savings from my family and friends, lelving
them without any funds, I would have changed. Day #2.
)
I do not have enough to pay that sl,ooo pool man debt that you atready paid. put
that money in the
bank- | do not have enough to pay the maid this week- You never put that money in my account from
last week- You are just a liar. An absolute liar. l'm calling the realtor, and we are selling
this house- I do
not know if we have any marriage left.
Frorn : mpicazio@aol.com frnailto:m picazio@aol-comJ

Sent: Friday, August 24,2Ot211:24 AM
To: Wifu
Subject: Re: Ctosed.Account
What are you talking abouL t wilt call u-

Sent on the Sprinte Now Network from rny BlackBerry€
From: "Kim Picazio" <kim @picaziolaw.Com>

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2Ot27L:22:12 -O4OO
To:'Mike Picazio'<mpicazio@aol.com>
Subject: Closed Account
why would you ever have us give that repairman a check from an account that no longer exists and has
been closed for years? Why Mike? l'm sitting here handing that check to him? Are you insane?!
From: kim@picaziolaw.com [mailto:kim@picaziotaw.comJ
Sent; Monday, October OL, 2OtZ t2:O2 pM
To: Picazio Mike
Subject:
?(,
t-z '-:
I want you to see in black and white the point I've been
trying to make. Here are your contributions into
the account that pays aii of our househoid bitls, tuitions, etc. For the
entire year of 2oT|thus far, along
with the checks l've had to write for you when you didn't have the money:
L/6: +4,8OO
1/9: +36t9
lltT: +L,60O
212: +I,OOO {returned)
2h5: +5OO ,
2/27: -2pAO-51to "cash" for Moe's Deli issue

3/1: -2,5OO to Charles Zimmerer
3/fi: affi (returned)
f/zo: '7fi (to Jay Spechler for Burgun mediation cancellation fee when you
declared bankruptcy)
3/2t: +5oo
7/?: -125 for your payroll
8/1Q: +2,5ffi
8/31: +1,0O0
Totaf : 55,62 4.4g for year 2ot2
You did not pay FPL for months due to bankruptcy, and the water
account - who knows. The poot man is
drastically behind, and you've made about 2 months pmts toward the maid. t pay for
school lunches for
the girls online. Let's add S1O,o0o to this number for this and that- we're at
Srs,oOo* for the entire
year' This is what you've made your family, and me, been tiving through. Last year's
total for 2011 was
SZt,ltZ-OS for the entire year. You have come home on time twice out of 3 entire weeks, becauss
you're "working". You are at work for no less than 11 hours per day- what
do you think of this, Mike?
----Original Message---
From: Kim Picazio [mailto:kim@picariolaw-com]
Sent Wednesday, July Z],,ZOhO 9:09 AM
To: 'Paula Andrews'
Subjecr RE: Claimtt0o100361t69 Kim and Michael picazio
Thanks for the info Paula. Can't t just tetlthem to sign it and send it to rne -
then when I get the funds
and deposit them, I can have you guys deposityour check? I gave Bill the check for
Five star's cut. I
knowyou're dealing with "procedures" but ljust was hoping to save time. Let me know -
| dorr,t want to
mess you up here. t'll do whatevei l,m supposed to do.
Thanks for the ro,of info by the way.
--Original Message---
From: Pa ula Andrews [mailto :paula @fsctaims.com]
Sent; Tuesday, July ZO,ZOIO 11:19 pM
To: kim@picaziolaw-com
Subject: FW: Ctaimf0o100361169 Kim and Michaelpicazio
Kim: This is for your check forS 1ZZ,432.6S.The check # is 0060212152.
.,,.-'/
('r
,
They did not include rive star claims Adjusting on

the check like they should have. you need to calt .
tomorrow and finci out what you need to do because the
check is made out to Michael & Kim picazio
and washington Mutualwhich is rrow chase .
I willgive you the phone nurnbers - please give
me a call
tomorrow so we cen get this money where it belongs- Tellthem'that
you owe Five Star cfaims s
z4'486's3 you have a copy of our invoice. They are going
to make you put a roof on so t would get 3 or 4
estimates and make sure they tell you what they a.e
ctrarging you persquare. I san look them over for
you if you want. They will probably want
a slgned contract and invoice from which ever roofer you
decide to go with they usually pay one third at a time
for the roofer and win probably send someone out
before the final payment to the roofer to make sure that
a ne* ,oof was indeed put on.
Also before vou give the roofer the last payment
make sure to get a release of lien and make sure they
paid the supplierso they cant put a tien
on your property. I will hetp you thru that process. I went
hell when I had my roof put on and I wourd not want thru.
thi; to rrappln you.
to
Also let me know which tnsurance cornpany you

have now on Middte River forthe Daily Claim so I can
send that in.
Call me tomorrow- | thank you,

Paula Andrews
washington Mutual Loss draft processing in south carolina

is t-g77-g93-5667 chase Mongage Georgia
center is 1-977-530.gg51 chase Loss Draft Dept
1.-866-742-145L
---Original Message-.
Frgm; carman.Blanchard@assurant.com
[mairto:carman.Blanchard@assurant.com]
Sent Wednesday, July L4,ZOLO4:OS pM
To: pdula@fsclaims.com
Subject Fw: claim*r001o0361r.69 Kim and Michaerpicazio
Pauia,
Sorry.about the typo in the EOB, but here is the updated one.
(See attached fi le: O0100381169-eob.pdf)
Thank You
Mrs. Carnan R. Blanchard

Claims Adjuster
Assurant Specialty pro perty
Phone 8W326-7791 Exr- 1130s
Fax 3O5-971-1563
Carma n. Bla ncha rd @assurant. com
t) q.
to*"rded by Carman Btanchard/ATVASSUMNT/US anOt/7a/2O10 04:O7 pM

::.
Carman
Blanchard/ATVASS
URANT/US To
pa ula@fivestarclaims_com
0742/2010O3:28 cc
PM
Subject
Claimt0010o351169 Kim and Michaet
Picazio
Paula,
I am in receipt of your voice mails wanting a snap shot of the screen print for the check. please be
advised that the system will not let me do that.
5o with that being said all I can do is verifo checkfto06027zL52was issued for 5t22,432.65 on 7-Z-LO.
There definitely was a typo in the letter. The check was for 5122 ,432.65was issued to Micliael and Kim
' Picazio and Washington Mutual Bank and was mailed to Washington Mutual Bank.
Thank You
Mrs. Carmdn R. Blanchard

Claims Adjuster
fu sura nt Specialty Property
Phone 8OO-32G7781 Err- 11305
Fax 305-971-1563
Carman.Blanchard@assurant.com
31
I
H
w
H
J I
Four Broward Residents Are Indicted In

Boat Theft Ring
July Z 199slBy WARR:N RICHEY StaffWriter . \
Federal prosecutors in Ohio on Thursday indicted fcnrrBroward County residents on

charges that they helped run a ring that stole seven boats and trailers, intending to resell
them out of state.
The four Broward residents were :rmong eight people nomed conspirators in the alleged
ring, prosecutors said.
, The nine-count indicfinent charges that from 1990 to 1993 the goup stole boats from
Hidden Harbour Marina in Pompano Beach as well as frrom locations in Toronto, Canada"
and Long Islan4 New York.
Prosecutors said the ring altoed hull numbers and created false documents to disguise
that the boats had been stolen. ,
At least two of the stolen boats traveled through Ohio and another was offered for sale by
telephone.
Narned in the indicment were: Anthony M. Galgan o,3'l,of Pompano Beach; Angela H.
Chiarello, 52, of LighthousePoint; RonaldDelvlarco, 48, of Coral Springs; Mchael
Picazio,25, of FortLauderdale; Aldo Garibddi,44, of Toronto; WalterK. "Wally"
Glanq 42, of Toronto; James G. Bardon" 32, of Leetoni4 Ohio; andDaniel R. Famq 35,
Boardman, Ohio.
,of
In addition to conspiracy to transport stolen boats, some of the defendants were charged
. with interstate transportation of stolen goods and wire fraud.
Each charge carries a ma:rimum five year prison term and a $250,000 fine.
The case was investigated by the FBI, the Ohio Departrnent ofNanrd Resources'
watercraft division, the Florida Deparfinent of Law Enforcement the Florida Marine
Patrol, and the Mehopolitan Toronto Police Department
W
H ,\
1
EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE DEPARTMENT oRrfMNb60020o-l
lNfTlAL COMPLAINT REPORT caseNumber-llrrrzrrl
Reported By State Zip

PtcAzto, KIM
Place of Employment City State Zip Business Ph.
KIM L. PICAZIO PA 1 FINANCIAL PLAZ FoRr Gu pERpAL J t I
FL ifu e+------l trs4) 46?€sb8 I
Victim Phone
PrcAzto. KtM
Tvoe of Victim Resident Race Sex Birth Date Age Hispanic SOC/OLN/OLS
llndividual l;Non Resident___-,'White lFemale
=--ri-- ll ll ll ll_. ___.ll I
Tvoe of Iniurv :
t;--
Reported ev f:-_-__::-] i!None !shelter nCounseling notner I PresenUUnharmed
nLegal !rueoicat lFinancial Assistance ! PresenUHarmed ! None Present
Date Occuned Day Of Week Time Occuned Assigned Anived Cleared

Fromi 0711212011 lTo f--r,e6da,- rrom l- oot j ro [-Ts59l i-1e:s91 I lese i Ttsfl
lncident Location lWorld Wide Web
State Statute
ecial Circumstances
LTNKED VTCTTM(S)..,
Method of Entry [__-:-:] Location #2 i ll PlcAzro, KrM
Point of Entry [---:- Gans Activig i-J
No. Premises Entered | ..-l Premises Inhabited ! Yes ! No_
! Bias / Hate Crime :Victim(s) susp€ct€d of uslng ! Alcohol

I n Alcohol
I
rvp" I
-------_-]
rarsetcode:_-::I
I Drugs
i -., i
! Computer Equip
Affiliation f] Not Applicable
=.?1t^"__,,
Pinled: Wednesday Apr 1 8, 201 2 03:06 PM Page: 1 of 2
.j:':+
(
EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE DEPARTMENT onri-rr,rHooooif-l
lNlTlAL COMPLAINT REPORT case Number
How Reported Reported Date
State Zip
'@'mn sr NW 1z :::]iEast cra"d Fon<s----]F-tL]Fq41_l
Heioht Weioht Eves Hair Race Sex DOB Age (range)
lt^F rL- i t^--r h--.
wh,E___l ftrae.---] 106/1?/1e68_l fZil [-l
Tvpe SOC/OLN/OLS Phone Hispanic Nick Name Driver License No
;Suspect | ,(218)77!1299 t$gn-Hispanic I N1_111q9991299_i
Relationship of Victim(s) to Suspect
Printed: Wednesday Apr 18,2012 03:06 PM Page: 2 of 2
-----: ...--- -: - -- - ---..

-.
EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE DEPARTMENT
onr l-rrrpoeoozool NARRATIVE #1 case Number a ',loo2zln 1
Date ,0711312011 i Officer ,558 | n Release to the Public
Reporter calls in wanting to make complaint about harassment. According to reporter Tim Holmseth has posted her
bank name, routing number and phone number on the internet. She claimed to be fearful of him. lt was discussed that
she should get a restraining order against him if she feels that way. She was asked if it was account number of routing
number but she did not answer.
A search was done to try locate this information but none was found. lt is possible it may be out there somewhere but
nothing was located concerning her business's bank and routing number.
Phone conversation was recorded and is listed as the below copied file number
20110712195940_11O4_Picazio_Kim 9545209969_9545209969.wav 12-Jul-2011 19:59 5.8M.
Since no information was found concerning her claim of the bank routing number being posted on the inter, it was
decided not to speak with Mr. Holmseth this evening.
This report forwarded to Lt. Hajicek.
Printed: Wednesday Apr 1 8, 201 2 03:06 PM Page: 1 of 1

Susan Earman
P O Aex.{36
Cclonial Beadt, Va, 224d3
FF,cretts04l ?14-C5S9
Apdl 27, 2011
frmoftyHoimsdt
320 lT&Sueetil.ud. -Usit tT
Easi Grand Fof.rs, UiN. 56721
llr.Holmsft,
Tiis.is my fgfinal Iequest h htue Ute Fhrida Bar look intg iie activits of atlomey, Kim L Piceeior
I rnadea donationsf 98,&X) iq cognsiiorrvith a rfiisSngdritdcase.TTremoneynasrvieddirectly
intothe personal accsurt C l$rn P!:€do.
fual acccuting I ladqtEstionsast0r{ilymoneywaswte{ldlre€rlI

cnce lrequestEdandreceiredtire
ltTnttrehauGdaknownErbstilceabser.lljhen I be$otoSeakup,f$ras$biect€db a hiltd o$line
campaign in an attsmpttosilencte tlre.
Acomrnentvrasmadeaborf havingairitotto* sU{ifeand'apasi,enghprof minevac!fiffi{d, Personal

infbrmauonregardngilysef andottershasbeen postsd 0tdinoinan€furtto ftaEtss,fireaten, intimldate,
andsllencs,
Atglt rinueatrBmryilrm L ylc:aorsasaFsstngmemDef at!1eHagl($ie$tri0rum, sneuseE krjmrmsonlBale

to irrestigaF people
Myconplaintrvi$rfreFtorida 9ar$rds- 11-11E55.ltrasdnoppd &eto i€€rsf Kitrt L Picadoattd heronlice

assoclabs. '
gnc€rdtyr
}.--,,i,x.-d,';r 1jA''u irr*i-.'.-r

iitarolEo'tiqol
f ,1&1Ot[*{E Hcx
ry.5'*s*iE<eni.*' , ..
:errrr ar.ar la
.-
:i**-* :n t-,.*"-- ..*,e-r Fles, "ffiffi#f*llJ'lifi'-
iir Ccxilisstcs exr',cas
' rr..rrE1lgEa to. 2gl 6
3{ir'ie$se*d*F 6SBE* i !-- 34,d,if ld
I
I
WIRE TRANSFER FORM - 11:38 AM - Monday, August 30, 2010
PRESS F1 iN EACH FIELD FOR AVAILABLE HELP. <TAB> BETWEEN FIELDS

CONTACT INFOi fpt,lrriai l:r::iii-:1 iiriit,rl:1 * itl
Submitted BY: C.Paradis $*,i:-:r:,4-{i?. i.t
SENDING BANK NAME:

DEBIT ACCOUNT(S):
ORIGiNATOR FULL NAME(S):
ORIGINATOR'S PHYSICAL ADDRESS: :': iijl j!l'i!::ii l;")t: ir,i;l;:lr:i!; }f;i
COLLECTED BAI.ANCE AMT OR LOAN I
CURRENCY: $ - US Dollar
WIRE AMOUNT: 3,000.00

FEE (IF ANY AND BMNCH): $25.00 BMNCH#: 18 itttfre atcbunt is type RR ltre tee should be $0
BANK ROUflNG NUMBER (ABA):
RECEMNG BANK NAME:

RECEMNG BANK ADDRESS: FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394
BENERCIARY ACCT NO. OT IBAN(FOREIGN): 2000044791564

BENERCTARY FULL NAME(S): LAW OFFTCE OF KrM L PTCAZTO, PA
ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA
BENEFICIARY ADDRESS: surTE #2500
FORT FL 33394
CORRESPONDENT BANK INFO:
/)un-a,ua Zzut'r^^'rn,
ATURE: n(cnecririnoirectrequest)
Document Customer Identification (iD Type/Expiration Date): REQUIRED
Name of requester:
Is this individual an authorized signer on the account? D Ves f] no (if no, you shou.ld not perform the wire request)
Validate the individual's SSN: ior.bhone requests :. and ooa: REQUIRED t- pt'ot" requ€sts
Call Bank Procedures: Confirmed request with:
This individuat was properly iddntitled following the Reg P guidellnes beforeconftrmation
Date of confirmation: Time of conftrmation: n pu nlm
Confirmed by:
jecOndary ApprOval Signatufe (Additionat approvat REQUTRED for any request over $100k and for anv indirect request):
ff not available for signature - attach emailed approval.
Union Bankshares Corooation

Revised: 312610g
I4AR-A3-261I tA:89 UNION BANK & aJTRUST
CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 50 Filed 10/03/14 Page 49 ofuq,
67zulu
544 775 9499 P.61/BL
' aa. rurur@y,
dt'a
>ep[emDer
-
PRESS Fl]N EACH EIELD FOR AVAII.ABLE HELP. <TAB> BETWEEN FIELDS
Submitted 8y: BONNTE SCHEXIiAYDEI
SENDiNG BANK NAME: BANK AND TRUST

DEBIT ACCOUNTIS):
ORIGINATOR FULL NAME(S) :
ORIGINATORS PHYSICAL ADDRESS: REQUIRED FOR FOREIGN WIRE5
COLLECTED BAIANCE APT OR LOAN AMT:
EEqEfrreER ro UFE{FV so a R c EffiFn N DSr

OJRRENCY: $ - U5 Dollar
WIRE AI{OUNTT 3,0OOr00
,
FEE (IF ANY AND BMNCH): $25.00 BMNCH#:17
SEPARATE FEE ACCT (IF NOT DEBIT ACCT):
$3,025.00
BANK ROUTING NUMBER (ABA): oTFOREIGN :
RECEIVING &ANK NAME:
RECETVING BANK ADDRESS:

EQEI'|IUDERDALq FL
BENEEICIARY ACCT NO. or IBAN(FOREIGN):
BENEFICIARY FULL NAME(S): r.Aw oFFTCE OF KIit L PICAzro,pa
EENERCIARY ADDRESS:
ONE EITANCIAL PLAZA
SUTTE # 25OO FORT LAUDERDAI,E, FL 33394
CORRESPONDENT BANK INFO:
Document Cusbmer ldentifkation (ID Type/Expiration o"eJ,

T{tfIFEd
Eelow is REQUIRED for all;Filrone requests!
r$ this individuat an authorized dgner on the account? fl ves

perfonir the wire request) f] no (lf no, you shouH not
valtdate the Individuars ssr{:
W and DoB;
ffi
Secondary Approval SignaturegrF AppRovAL rs REeutRED):
For Depositsenrtcer Use Only (rubmitterc should not

write in this area!)
Refurence Number:
Revised r/13/06 lrn l tA/ T fr,lnrltY "lo r\-/L/^6

TOTAL P.@1
T
H
w
H
(---,)
CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB
Case 12-13653-JKO Doc 78 Filed
Document 50 04123112
Filed 10/03/14
Page 1Page
of 6 51 of 67
UNITED STATES BAI\KRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
/ www.flsb.uscourts.sov
In re: Case No. 12-13653-JKO

Chapter l l
Michael J. Picazio
Debtor I
KIM L. PICAZIO'S AIID KIM L. PICAZIO, P.A.'S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER OR ALTERNATIVELY TO SEAL
COMES NOW Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A., by and through their
undersigned counsel, and hereby moves for a protective order pursuant to Local Rule
2004-1(C) prohibiting, limiting or altemately to seal the examination duces tecum of Kim
L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A. (CM/ECF Document 67) and in support thereof
submits the following:
Introduction
1. Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A. seeks a protective order from the
Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examinatio n Duces Tecum by Creditors, John Burgun and
Maria Burgun (the "Burguns"). It is strongly believed that the Burguns' attempt to
examine Mrs. Picazio is brought in bad faith with the intent to harass her. The Burguns'
attempt to obtain the same information was denied in a recent state court case by a
Broward Circuit Court Judge on November 15,2011. See attached Exhibit "A".
Likewise, this Honorable Court should grant Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A. a
protective order regarding the Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecumby
the Burguns.
Page I of6
Legacy Bank Btds.. l2 sE 7'h srreet, Suite 608 . iti if]}J"l;l[ 33301 . office ss4.7t2.3070. Fax e54.337.3824
david@dipietro-law.com . www.dipietro-law.com
I
Filed 10/03/14
Page 2Page
of 6 52 of 67
Background and Argumentl
2.. On or about April 13, 2012, the Burguns served their Notice of Taking Rule
2004 Examination Duces Tecum upon Kim L. Picazio. Despite the Notice of Taking
Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum only being served upon Kim L. Picazio,
individually, and not in her capacity as officer or representative of Kim L. Picazio, P.A.,
said Notice requests the following information:
a. All Kim L. Picazio's bank statements for the last twelve months, including
all financial transactions related to said account(s).
b. All Kim L. Picazio's law firm's bank statements (Kim L. Picazio, P.A.)
for the last twelve months, including all financial transactions related to
said account(s).
( c. Copies of Kim L. Picazio's personal tax returns for the last three years.
d. Copies of Kim L. Picazio's law firm (Kim L. Picazio, P.A.) tax returns for
the last three years.
e. Copies of all checks between Debtor, Michael J. Picazio and Kim L.

Picazio and Kim L.Picazio, P.A. for the past twenty-four months.
f. Copies of all checks between Debtor, Michael J. Picazio's business

entities and Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A. for the past twenty-
four months.
. g. All cash deposit slips for Kim L. Picazio's bank account for the past
twenty-four months.
3. Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A. asserts that good cause does not
exist to conduct a Rule 2004 Examination and thaf the Burguns' Notice of Taking Rule
2004 Examination Duces Tecum seeks to unduly burden, annoy and harass Kim L.
I It is important to mention that Kim L. Picazio and Debtor, Michael J. Picazio have not filed a joint tax
'age 2 of6
DI PTETRO LAW
Legacy Bank Bldg. . | 2 SE 7'h Street, Suite 608 . Ft. Lauderdale. FL 3330 | . Otfice 954.712.3070 ' Fax 954.337 .3824
david@dipietro-law.com' rvwrv.dipietro-larv.com
CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 50 04123112
Filed 10/03/14 Page 53 of 67
Case 12-13653-JKO Doc 78 Filed Page 3 of 6
Picazio.
4. Kim L. Picazio and the Burguns were previously friends and associates, but
for reasons unrelated to this Motion for Protection, they had a falling out that lead the
Burguns to become very acrimonious towards Kim L. Picazio.
5. Moreover, on about September 19,20L1, a Broward County Circuit Court
issued a Permanent Injunction For Protection Again5t Repeat Violence against a cyber
stalker, who:is presently being prosecuted for stalking Kim L. Picazio and her family.
6. This cyber stalker maintains a website that he uses to harass, stalk, and
intimidate Kim L. Picazio in all facets of her life. Thus, Kim L. Picazio is in immediate
danger of harm as a result of the cyber stalker's activities. At the request of Mrs. Picazio,
this Court previously issued an Order [Doc 52] sealing the Debtor's schedules and
limiting them to only "(a) the United States Trustee, (b) the Creditors, and (c) those
parties and non-parties who the United States Trustee believes should receive this
information for case-related purposes..."
7. The Burguns are aware of the cyber stalker's prior illegal conduct and have
previously provided information to this cyber stalking to "fuel" the cyber stalker's
harassment of Kim L. Picazio. In fact, on or around February 23,2012, a purported
private investigator working on the behalf the Burguns provided bogus information about
the Debtor and Kim L. Picazio, which was used to file frivolous complaint with the
Florida Bar against Kim L. Picazio. It is noteworthy to mention that this cyber stalker
has filed a copious amount of frivolous complaints with the Florida Bar and other
governmental agencies against Kim L. Picazio. Neither the Florida Bar, nor any other
Page 3 of6
LegacyBankBrds..r2sETftstreer,Suite608.rDtliltJIJ"i;:[3330l.orrice s54.712.3070.Faxes4.337.3824
david@dipietro-law.com . www.dipietro-law.com
Filed 10/03/14
Page 4Page
of 6 54 of 67
governmental agency has ever taken any action related to these complaints. These prior
frivolous complaints were the predicate for the issuance of the permanent injunction
against the cyber stalker.
8. Further, pursuant to the Florida Constitution and the related progeny of
Florida case law,. Kim L. Picazio has a fundamental right to privacy regarding her
financial records. See Gibson v. Progress Bank of Fla., 54 So. 3d 1058 (DCA 2"d 20ll).
g. Moreover, as it relates to a Rule 2004 Examination, "good cause" is needed
to proceed. (Generally, "good cause" is shown for Rule 2004 examination where
examination is necessary to establish a claim of a party seeking examination, or where
denial of parfy's request will cause party undue hardship or injustice). In re Dinubilo,
E.D.Cal.l993, 177 B.R.932, on remand 177 B.R. 949). Granting or denying a motion
for examination of a debtor (much less a non-debtor) is discretionary with the bankruptcy
court. See In re Merritt, Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1991, 126B.R. 526.
10. Although Rule 2004 permits examination of third parties, the language of
rule makes it evident that examination may be had only of those persons possessing
knowledge of debtor's acts, conduct or financial affairs so far as such knowledge relates
to"a debtor's bankruptcy proceeding. Rule 2004 is not to be used as a device to launch
into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business affairs. Matter of
Wilcher, Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. I 985, 56 B.R. 428.
I l. Rule 2004 only allows for the examination of a bankrupt's wife when the
o'touching
business transacted by her, or to which she is a pafly, and to determine the fact
whether she had transacted or been a party to any business of the bankrupt." In re
Page 4 of6
Lesacy Bank Bldg. . t2 sE 7'h Street, if]*a.i;:[

suite 608 . iDtl 3330t . office ss4.7t2.3070. Fax e54.337.3824
david@dipieno-law.com . rvrvw.dipietro-law.com
Filed 10/03/14
Page 5Page
of 6 55 of 67
Worrell,E.D.Pa 1903.,-125 F. 159. The Debtor, Michal J. Picazio, is not a member of the
Florida Bar. Kim L. Picazio and her law firm practice'exclusively in the area of family
law litigation. It is undisputed that the Debtor and Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio,
P.A. do not transact in any mutual business and do not share interest in any business
entities.
12. Finally, the financial records sought from Kim L. Picazio, P.A. indeed seek
privileged and confidential documents and therefore, Kim L. Picazio is ethically unable
to produce the requested records on the behalf of Kim L. Picazio, P.A. See generally
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) (When the client himself would be
privileged from production of the document, the attorney having possession of the
document is not bound to produce)
13. It clearly appears that the Burguns' Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination
Duces Tecum seeks financial information that is private and privileged and was made for
the purpose of harassing, annoying and unduly burdening Kim L. Picazio.
14. Kim L. Picazio has incurred attorney's fees related to the filing of this Motion
and requests that attorney's fees are awarded in her behalf and against the Burguns.
15. Altematively, should the Court allow for the Rule 2004 Examination to go
forward, Kim L. picLio would request that all information and documents related to the
examination and any transcript produced be sealed and limited to only the United States
Trustee, the Creditors to this bankruptcy estate, and those parties and non-parties who the
United States Trustee believes should receive this information for case-related purposes.
Page 5 of6
DI PIETRO LAW
Legacy Bank Bldg. . l2 SE 7ft Street, Suite 608. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 . Office954.712.3070'Fax 954.337.3824
david@dipietroJaw.com . www.dipietro-law.com
Filed 10/03/14
Page 6Page
of 6 56 of 67
WHEREFORE, Kim L. Picazio and Kim L. Picazio, P.A., respectively requests
and Order of Protection prohibiting the Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examinatio n Duces
Tecum by Creditors, John Burgun and Maria Burgun or alternatively, an Order sealiirg all
information or do.cuments related to the examination and any transcript produced and any
other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
DI PIETRO LAW, P.A.

Legacy Bank Bldg.
12 SE 7u Street, Suite 608
Telephone: (954) 7 12-307 0
Facsimile : (9 5 4) 337 -3824
david@dipietro-law.com
/s/ David Di Pietro

DAVID DI PIETRO, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 10370
Page 6 of6
DI PIETRO LAW
Legacy Bank Brdg.. r2 sE 7s sreet,suire,;ff;l:_:::ff':i*Jillr".J Fax e54 337 3824
;$Tffies4.712.3070.
Fl
T) \-trt
fl
w
r/
1
Page I Page 3
TJNITED STATES BANKRI.JPTCY COURT I THE COURT: Let's set up in Picazio, and
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2 we'll take a very short break.
IN RE: cAsE NO. 12-13653-BKC-JKO 3 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
MICHAEL J. PICAZIO, 4 .THE COURT: Okay. Let me take appearances,
Debtor. 5 please.
6 MR. ZIMMERER: Charles J.Zimmerer forthe
7 debtor, Mr. Picazio.
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDE& IN ADDITION TO MOTION T(
8 TFm COURT: Thank you, Mr. Zimmerer.
SEAL FILED BY DEBTOR MICIIAEL J. PICAZIO (73); MOTION
9 MR. REYNOLDS: Matt Scott and Doug Reynolds
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION TO SEI l0 from Tripp Scott on behalf of creditor John and Maria
FILED BY NON-FILING SPOUSE LOWRY KIM PICAZIO (79) ll Burgun.
t0 t2 THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen.
ll l3 MR. BROEKER: Your Honor, I'm here more as
12 April26,2012
14 an observer, although l'may have comments, Douglas
l3
l4 l5 Broeker here on behalfof--
l5 l6 THE COURT: Whom do you represent,
l6 The above-entitled cause came on for 17 Mr. Broeker?
17, hearing before the HONORABLE JOHN K. OLSON, one of 18 MR. BROEKER: tuoVista.
l8 the judges of the UMTED STATES BANKRTJPTCY COURT, in l9 THE COURT: Who is Rio Vista?
t9 and for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORJDA, at 299 Easr
20 MR. BROEKER: Rio Vista is another company
20 Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
2l Florida on April26,20l2, commencing at orabout
2t that was in litigatio4 against the debtor when the
)') l0:00 a.m., and the following proceedings were had: 22 debtor was in bankruptcy
23
By: Bonnie Tannenbaum
23 -
THE COURT: Are you is your client a
24 Reported 24 creditor in this case? Do they have an interest?
25 25 MR. BROEKER: They will be filing a proof
Page2 Page 4
2
I APPEARANCES:
OFFICE OF TI{E UNITED STATES TRUSTEE. bv
I of claim, yes, Your Honor.
ZANA SCARLETI, TRIAL ATTORNEY (Via Teieihone) 2 THECOURT: Okay.
J On behalf of the United States Trustee 3 MR. BROEKER: I anticipate they will be
CHARLES J. ZIMMERER, P,A., bY
4 filing - t
CHARLES J. ZIMMERER, ESQUIRE 5 THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from you,
On behalfofthe Debtor 6 Mr. Zimmerer, Come on up and use the lecturn,
6
TNPP SCOTT, by
7 please.
DOUGLAS H. REYNOLDS, ESQUIRE 8 MS. SCARLETT: Your Honor, Zana Scarlett
MATTHEW H. SCOTT, ESQURE 9 for the Office of the U.S. Trustee on the phone.
On behalf of Creditors John and Maria Burgun 10 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Scarlett.
II
9
l0 SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER& VARKAS, P.L., bY MR. ZIMMERER: Your Honor, good morning,
DOUGLAS C. BROEKE& ESQUIRE 12 and thank you for having me on such short notice.
ll On behalf of Rio Vista
.
13 This is the debtor's motion for protective order
t2
ALSO PRESENT: 14 reference, I guess, Document Number 72, and Documenl
l3 \ l5 Number 67, which are the notices of examinations
l4
KIM PICAZIO 16 filed by the creditors, John and Maria Burgun, and
l5 17 the examinations relate to Brian Thompson and
l6 l8 Mrs. Picazio, who is present and seated next to the
l7
l8
19 debtor here, and she is an attorney.
l9 20 With respect briefly, to Mr. Thompson,
20 21 he's an employee of Mr. Picazio's company, and I
2l
')')
22 believe he's a laborer. So, to the extent that they
23
23 are requesting, you know, his personal tax returns,
24 24 his bank account statements, and things like that,
?5
25 and it's my --
| (Pages 1 to 4)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC.

(305) 3s8-8875
Paee 5 PageT
I THE COURT: They're asking for I MR. ZIMMERER: Okay.

2 Mr. Thompson's bank accounts? 2 THE COURT: Mrs. Picazio, do you want to
J MR. ZIMMERER: My understanding - yeah, 3 talk to me at this point?
4 and his personal tax returns. He's not a partner in 4 MRS. PICAZIO: Yes, sir.
) Mr. Picazio's business, this is an individual Chapter 5 THECOURT: Okay.
6 11, he's an employee of Mr. Picazio's company. I'm 6 MRS. PICAZIO: Good moming, Your Honor.
7 having a difficult time -- I understand, and the 7 THE COURT: Good morning.
8 Court did, you know, state that it was a fishing 8 MRS. PICAZIO: I am the wife of Michael
9 expedition, I read the case law, that seems to be the 9 Picazio, who is the debtor here, my name is Kim
10 case, but it seems like it's -- it shouldn't be 10 Picazio, and I've been a member of the Florida Bar
1l permitted as far as Mr. Thompson. I don't see how II since 1995. I received a service ofa subpoena duces
l2 any value could come out of any statement that that l2 tecum on AprilZ4th at my law office, which was
13 individual could give, he's not a manager of any of 13 received by one of my employees wherein the unsecured
l4 Mr. Picazio's companies. 14 creditor, the Burguns, were asking for my bank
15 So that would be my argument. I would ask 15 statements, and I'd like to preface by I have not
16 the Court to grant my motion for protective order, 16 conducted financial affairs with my husband clearly
l7 and not allow an examination of Brian Thompson and 17 'through business,.I'm a lawyero and he engages in
l8 his personal family affairs, which would include his 18 grease fap pumping, et ceter4 and my - they
t9 personal bank statements, and would reveal what his 19 requested my personal bank statements. I've not
20 wife's doing, it seems a bit broad. 20 banked with Mr. Picazio in over a year, I have sole
2l The second argument I have is on behalfof 21 accounts, I've not filed ajoint tax return with my
22 Mrs. Picazio. Interestingly, Mrs. Picazio is here to 22 husband since2004.
23 speak, if the Court is so inclined, but she's 23 I believe that they are well aware of this,
24 recently received a Bar complaint from this stalker. 24 as there was a state litigation which dripped into
25 As the Court is aware, there was recently a motion 25 this particular courhoem as he filed for bankruptcy,
Page 6 Page 8
I for protective -- a motion to seal granted with 1 and they had done whole-scale depositions of many
2 reference to Schedules I and J, there was a hearing, 2 individuals of his business.
3 it was based upon the debtor's, you know, assertions 3 lt's truly disturbing to me when I
4 to the Court or representations to the Court that 4 receive a -- when we have asked for protection from
5 there was a stalking injunction and this stalking 5 this Court, which historically is to protect.the
6 case. 6 debtor from the wolves coming in, but also I would
7 Well, the stalker has filed, I have a copy 7 think that there would be some threshold for this
8 of the complaint, and the complaint states that the 8 Court, to me, and a good faith basis to prove that
9 stalker -- the putative stalker alleges in his 9 there would be some -- I don't even know what the
10 complaint that there's a bankruptcy fraud occurring, l0 claim would be to look into my private financial
11 that Mr. Picazio and Mrs. Picazio are concealing II affairs, or my law firm, which, of course, would be
12 assets, something to that affect, and also cites the 12 cloaked with attorney/client privilege for my clients
13 creditor Maria Burgun as having provided this 13 names. In order to substantiate where a deposit was
14 information to him. 14 made, I'd have to give them my billing slips for a
15 So, it strikes me that the request to l5 client, there's work product and attorney/client. My
16 analyze Mrs. Picazio's personal tax retums, her law 16 clients are not here, nor are they on noticeo to
17 firm's tax returns, her law firm's bank accounts, l7 object to this whole-scale intrusion into their
18 when Mr. Picazio isn't even an attorney, he can't, by l8 divorce cases, I'm a divorce attomey.
19 law, conduct business with her, it really makes me 19 With regard to the order, thank you, Your
20 question whether, you know, it was filed in, 20 Honoro for granting the motion to seal the documents
2l necessarily, good faith for the purposes of which 2l so that this individual who has been stalking me ever
22 this Court would traditionally see. I have a copy of 22 since I was doing a high profile case, I do high
23 that Bar complaint, and Ms. Picazio wants to speak on 23 profile cases, I appear as a commentator on CNN and
24 her behalf. 24 other national news networks, and I have a stalker
25 THECOURT: Okay. Thankyou. 25 who took a liking to me, or a hatred to me, whatever
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC.

(305) 358-8875
Page9 Page l I
I the case may be, and has been wreaking havoc in my I to filter information through a private investigator
2 life. 2 who is working for them, he has represented to be
a
J The Burguns have been in direct J working for them, he has said it on shows, or talk
4 communication with my stalker, Mr. Homesteth 4 shows, on the radio, on these blogger things that he
5 (phonetic). Her voice actually appears on an audio 5 does, they have given this information, and it even
6 tape on his website. He has b'een arrested for 6 says the date. I have the document here, I have the
7 violating the injunctions against him in Minnesotq 7 stamp at the top, although I don't have a certified
8 he stands trial in June for three violations of my 8 copy, I got it mailed to me from the Florida Bar,
9 injunction, and we still see now that information is 9 actually e-mailed, and Shanee Clark is the
l0 being filtered to this man from the Burguns. And I 10 -
attomey is the staffattorney on this case. This
1l almost feel as if and since I'm a witness and not a ll Bar complaint has been dism_issed. It was filed on
t2 lawyer here, Your Honor, that this is a very silent t2 February 23rd,20l2,and in it, it states that on
l3 form of extortion to get - to impede my husband's 13 February 23rd, my stalker, Tim Homesteth, was
14 lifestyle, his family, his friends until everyone t4 contacted by a private investigator, William Staubs,
l5 says, Mike, enough, drop the bankruptcy thing, 15 who works for the Burguns, and he told him that he
r6 because you're -- you know, his employee Bgian, we t6 had just learned from Maria Burgun of Fort
17 don't know his family, we don't go out to dinner with 17. Lauderdale, Florida that Mike Picazio had just given
l8 him, he's a truck driver, but if they could wreak 1d another man 21,000.
19 havoc in his life, have his wife get served at home, 19 I'll have you know, we got a call from an
20 or delve into her bank accounts, maybe the man has 20 FBI agent, and I even spoke with him, that they have
2l children's accounts in his name. 21 been contacting the FBI. And, in fact, when the FBI
22 First of all, this is the very beginning of 22 investigated whatever highfalutin claim that they
23' the case, there hasn't even been discovery where they 23 gave them that week, he contacted me and actually
24 would locate a mass of hidden funds, if that's even 24 said he felt sorry for me, but there was nothing he
25 what they're trying to prove is a fraudulent type 25 could do. And I said, fraudulent allegations to a
page l0 Page 12
I of - and I'm a state lawyer, Your Honor, so I don't 1 federal agent, how about that? And, instead, he
2 have the jargon. But if they're trying to prove that 2 said, well, they're causing a ruckus. Maria Burgun's
3 there's money being hidden or filtered through any 3 brother has insisted on, since we are not going to
4 third party, wouldn't they first have to at least 4 bring charges against any ofyoq that we are going
5 look at the spreadsheets, or do some discovery and 5 to -- they're going to make an appointment with our
6 say, here's his payables, here's the receivables, and 6 supervisor up here, so her brother is now
7 here's what is missing, here's the difference, we 7 communicating with the FBI; And Maria Burgun was sc
8 need to find who has the hidden money? That hasn't 8 upset says the FBI agent to me on the phone, that
9 even been done. 9 she requested to go to the FBI office in Miami to
10 So, I think that all of this would be 10 make additional statements for the record.
I I premature and further demonstrates their motivation II So, at this point I'm wondering do I have
12 simply to harass people in Mr. Picazio's life, 12 two stalkers now, Your Honor? I'm a lawyer. My
13 including me, because they know that I will put my 13 husband is seeking - is doing the right thing by
14 foot down at some point and Say to my husband, 14 seeking bankruptcy protection. He has not said
l5 enough. I5 goodbye to creditors, and go get your judgment, which
16 When I got this Bar complaint from my 16 is not collectible, which it wouldn't be, Your Honor.
17 stalker, which directly mentions Maria Burgun, the 17 It would not beo'our house is in foreclosure. We had
l8 man who I am deathly afraid of, who has had my l8 bad business deals made by my husband for years, and .
19 children had to stay home by order of the captain of l9 here we are. We'd like to build back up and do the
20 the police. I've had 24 hour surveillance on my 20 right thing bfpaying these people back. We're not
21 house for some periods of time in my life from this 21 trying to discharge these debts.
22 guy, who has sent my 15 year old son letters to my 22 So we're here in good faith, we could have
23 home. When that happens, and I have a person 23 just hightailed it and left creditors hanging. We've
24 sitting, who has attended, it's my understanding, 24 chosen not to do that. And we seek protection from
25 . every hearing here, and takes time out of their day, 25 this Court from a whole-scale intrusion into mv
@ages 9 to l2)
.'ELLETTE & MAULDIN couRTRE'.RTERS.INc.
(30s) 3s8-8875
Page 13 Page 15
I private financial affairs, including my private - my t has been involved with basically cashing checks he
2 clients' work, my clients' payments, their names, 2 receives from his clients, taking that cash and
3 their identities, which would necessarily have to be 3 distributing it.
4 given over in orderto substantiate the source ofthe 4 I'll start with Brian Thompson, for
5 deposits. 5 example. With regard to Mr. Thompson, this is a
6 I am very proud ofmy finances, I have 6 small company, it has a few employees, Mr. Thompson
7 nothing to hide. And, quite frankly, I would be . 7 is one of those employees. Mr. Thompson represented
8 inclined to show a special magistrate, which is what 8 in the state court action under oath that he was paid
9 we would do in state court, for instance, an in 9 $1,400 a week in cash. That money comes up to about
l0 camera inspection. I agree that my finances are 10 $70,000 a year of cash income. He did not get
II probably relevant to see if our combined incomes can 11 checks, he got cash.
12 pay back some plan, whatever that is done. But 12 We would like to have the opportunity to
l3 there's never been any discovery or good faith basis, l3 see if that practice continues. We believe that
14 or reasonable cause to believe that there's any money 14 because of the cash nature of this business, it's
15 missing or being hidden. First, find the money that 15 hard to get our hands around what this business is
16 doesn't add up, then go look for it. 16 really doing. We know they have very substantial
l7 So, Your Honor, I believe that this motion 17 clients, we know they have a history of operating.
l8 should be granted, the subpoenas are all premature, 18 We know that in spite of representations of how tough
19 they're clearly motivated to harass and oppress the 19 tley are, Mr. Picazio continues to engage in the
20 the friends and family of the debtor, who is here 20 business.
21 seeking this Court's protection. There is evidence 2l Now, one of the documents they filed with
22 of it by a Bar complaint being filed for the very 22 this Courf they said that his monthly income was
23 reason Your Honor sealed this file from public view 23 $30,000 a month, one of the documents they filed with
24. by Maria Burgun, who chooses to be here at each 24 this Courf they said his income was $10,000 a year,
25 hearing. 25 one of the documents thev filed with this Court said
Page 14 Page 16
I So, Your Honor, with that, I would like I that his income was approximately $4,500 a month.
2 Your Honor, if you are not inclined to grant the 2 We're not exactly sure where it is, but we know that
a
J motion, if you could wait until they could have a there's a lot of cash that's involved with this
4 good faith basis, or have someone do an in camera 4 process historically, and we suspect that that
5 inspection of these documents, especially for my 5 process may be continuing.
6 husband's employees, to see if there is anything that 6 The Corrrt should also be aware that
7 would cause anyone to believe that we are somehow 7 Mr. Picazio has not filed individual or corporate tax
8 committing crimes and filtering money illegally 8 returns for the last approximately 7 years. So when
9 through my husband, who, believe me, does not have 9 we ask for him -- for financial records, his response
t0 any money, and I am supporting our household. t0 will be, I haven't done it yet, or it's not ready
ll THE COURT: Thank you, Mrs. Picazio. ll yet.
12 MRS. PICAZIO: Thank you, YourHonor. t2 Your Honor, we're b'eing placed in a
13
' THE COURT: Mr. Scott or whomever. l3 position where we have to go out and source the
t4 ' MR. REYNOLDS: May it please the Cciurt. t4' information ourselves. Mrs. Picazio is right about
15 Douglas Reynolds here.on behalf of the creditors John 15 the fact that her income -- she claims that her
l6 and Maria Burgun. I'm also joined by Matthew Scott 16 income is subsidizing their $1.1 million home and
17 at Tripp Scott. l7 lifestyle. I don't know tha! I don't know exactly
l8 Your Honor, I'm here because I was involved l8 how extensive it is, but I do know that somehow this
r9 in the state court case that preceded this, so I have r9 family continues to have kids in private school is my
20 a little understandjng and knowledge of the facts and 20 understanding. This family continues to drive
2l circumstances, which I will share with you. 2l expensive cars, this family continues to live on the
22 What the Court needs to understand, the 22 water over on the east side ofFort Lauderdale,
23 purpose ofthe discovery is the fact that 23 somehow that's all happening for somebody who on one
24 Mr. Picazio, for a period of a substantial number of 24 allegation says there's no income, and on the other
25 years, has engaged in basically a cash business. He 25 hand says that there's substantial income, we just
4 (Pages 13 to l6)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS.INC.
. (305) 3s8-8875
Page 17 Page 19
I can't figure it out. I think the other creditors willjoin in.

2 So with regard to Mr. Thompson, we think 2 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me ask you one
3 he's very appropriate, because if this man is getting 3 question, or a -couple, relating to the protective
4 some $70,000 of income each year, that business has 4 order materials or the protective orders filed by
5 income in excess of that amount to pay him. We can 5 . both the debtor and by Kim Picazio. Ordinarily, I
6 imagine what ihe other employees are getting paid, as 6 should have thought that financial information
7 well as Mr. Picazio. Those are factors that this 7 relating to a spouse would be the subject of a '
8 Court should be aware of, and the creditors should be 8 confidentiality agreement, has there been a
9 aware of, as well. 9 discussion between you and Mr. Zimmerer with respect
10 As to Ms. Picazio, we don't seek to harass l0 to that?
1l her, we don't seek to bother her, we're just fying II MR. REYNOLDS: No, sir.
t2 to find out financial information. And with regard 12 THE COURT: Why?
13 to her issue about the Bar complaint, I would point 13 MR. REYNOLDS: It wasn't brought up.
t4 out to Your Honor that, A, my clients weren't 14 THE COURT: Okay. If, as is alleged,
15' involved in that, two, the information that's alleged 15 information is being widely shared by your clients,
16 came from a William Staubs where he quotes Maria 16 why should I permit your clients to see the
t7 Burgun who quoted her brother, Eddie Boyle (phonetic) l7 information, why should I not restrict the
l8 saying that he received $21,000 in cash a couple of 18 information to lawyers?
19 months ago. Well, Mr. Boyle was provididg services, 19 MR. REYNOLDS: Well, YourHonor, first of
20 allegedly, for Mr. Picazio, and claims that 20 all, I don't believe our clients are going to take
21 Mr. Picazio paid him $21,000 in cash forthose 21 the position that they're giving out a substantial .
22 serVices. Obviously, we think this has something to 22 amount of information.
23 do with the bankruptcy, and itrs information that may 23 THE COURT: I acceptthat proposition.
24 lead to further discovery. 24 MR. REYNOLDS: You entered a motion to seal
25 As you know, the discovery rules in 25 certain documents that were filed previously in this
Page I 8 Page 20
I bankruptcy are very liberal and generous in terms of I case, and my clients were instructed to adhere to
2 the ability to do that, they cite a case that talks 2 that order, and my understanding is that they have.
3 about taking the deposition of a wife, it's a 1903 3 THECOURT: Okay.
4 case, but in that case, the Court actually 4 MR. REYNOLDS: And they intend to continue.
5 acknowledged that the wife was an appropriate party '5 THE COURT: Then in respect of financial
6 to depose in that case. 6 information or'other information that you seek from
7 We're not here to harass, we're not here to 7 Mn. Picazio, why should I not impose a
8 get into her personal confidential information, or 8 confidentiality restriction, which means that you and
9 that of her clients, we're trying to figure out what 9 Mr. Scott can look at financial information. If you
10 is actually going on. And to this date, I don't I0 have other professionals that you believe need to
1l believe, and somebody can correct me, but I dont II review that information, I'm prepared to expand the
12 believe that Mr. Picazio has actually provided 12 circle of those who can review it. I'm not inclined
13 financial records to anyone that would explain what 13 to let your clients see the information absent a
14 is going on and what his income and expenses are. 14 further motion that explains what it is that we're
l5 And if I'm incorrect about that, I'll stand 15 talking about. Certainly a lawyer's files have a
16 corrected. But I'll ask Mr. Zimmerer, because when I 16 higher degree of sensitivity, particularly divorce
17 asked Mr. Zimmerer that question, he indicated that l7 lawyers, than the average bear, and while I quite
l8 there really wasn't a lot in process at this point. l8 agree with your proposition that people who are
l9 So, from that standpoint, Your Honor, we 19 receiving cash from the debtor, or it is alleged are
20 think the discovery is appropriate, we think it 20 receiving cash from the debtor, or particularly if
2l should go forward, and we're also planning to take 2l they have testified that they have in the past been
22 Mr. Picazio's deposition, and anybody else that has 22 paid in cash by the debtor, that asking questions of
23 information relating to this case. But we don't 23 them in respect oftransactions between them and the
24 believe that our clients have done anything 24 debtor are perfectly appropriate.
25 inappropriate, and we think it's fair game, and I 25 Similarly, if you have reasons - similarly
5 (Pages 17 to20)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURTREPORTERS. INC.
(30s) 3s8-8875
Page2l Page23
I with a spouse. Spouses are frequently dragged into I THE COURT: Okay. So that you would be,
2 bankuptcy proceedings looking for information, it is 2 for instance, willing to have her redact client names
3 a fishing expedition but, again, confidentiality 3 from financial records that she provided to you, is
4 seems to me to be an element of that, as well, since 4 that what you're telling me?
5 the representations have been made to me that there 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Well, first of all, you
6 is a stalker, Mrs. Picazio is quite explicit in 6 asked about client files.
7 discussing the nature ofthe stalking, and that there 7 TIIECOURT: Okay.
8 are even proceedings pending in anotherjurisdiction 8 MR. REYNOLDS: I said, we're not interested
9 against the stalker for the enforcement of various 9 in client files. As far as redacting, I don't
10 injunctive reliefthafs been granted 10 believe that there's a confidentiality nature to a
1l So, I assume you wouldhave no problem with I I client making a payment to an attorney.
12 the confidentiality restriction, but perhaps you do. 12 THE COURT: I'll listen to Mr. Zimmerer or
13 MR. REYNOLDS: Personally, no, Your Honor, l3 Mrs. Picazio on that subject, but I think you'rq
14 I donrt. 14 probably right.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Who might, then? 15 MR.REYNOLDS: Sol'mjustnot--likel
16 MR. REYNOLDS: Well, my clients might. 16 said, if we see the financial records, and it has
17 THE COURT: Well, speak foryour clients, 17 clients' names, and we agree not to disclose that in
18 and tell me why they should see stuffat this point. l8 light of your restrictions, that only allows me to
19 MR. REYNOLDS: Your Honor, I think they 19 veriff, because I can actually look at public records
20 have a right to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses 20 and see whether those clients and those cases
21 of their case, and in order to do that, it may depend 21 actually exist.
22 on seeing certain information that's financial 22 The other thing Your Honor has asked is if
23 related to the Picazios. 23 the circle of people could also include other
24 THECOURT: Okay. 24 attomeys and professional forensic accountant-type
25 MR. REYNOLDS: It's one thins for me to see 25 people within our sphere.
'Page22 Page24
I it and give advice and recommendations, but the 1 THE COURT: I'd be inclined to do that, but
2 client ultimately has that decision making authority. 2 I'd want them identified -
3 THE COURT: I appreciate that. I'm 3 MR. REYNOLDS: That would be fine.
4 prepared to let the process take multiple small 4 THE COURT: - in any order, and I'd --
5 steps, ifit has to do that, and to restrict access 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Would that also include
6 to the information to you and Mr. Scott. If you need 6 paralegals be identified?
7 to expand that universe at this stage, fine. If you 7 THECOURT: Letmesuggestthatwheriweget
8 want to include your clients in that circle, A, I 8 to that level, that you and Mr. Zimmerer need to sit
9 will require a very strict confidentiality 9 down and hammer out a confidentiality agreement that
10 restriction on their ability to share the information 10 works in the circumstances of this case. I'm trying
I I with anyone else; and, B, I'll probably want to see I 1 only to give you broad strokes, and not specific
12 what you're talking about, that is to say what the 12 admonitions or specific restrictions that are either
13 information that you have shows, before I am prepared 13 unnecessary or are inappropriate in the context of
14 to allow sort of free rein into a lawyer's -- 14 this case. But I'll want to hear from Mr. Zimmerer
15 particularly into a lawyer's files. l5 before I reach a conclusion of what I'm going to do
16 Talk to me. 16 this moming.
l7 MR. REYNOLDS: Your Honor, just to clarify, 17 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
l8 I'm not really interested in looking at her clients' 18 THECOURT: Anythingelseyouwanttotell
19 files. I'm not interested in that. I'm not 19 me in respect of these matters at this point?
20 looking -- I'm only interested in the financial 20 MR. REYNOLDS: No, but we just have serious
2l , aspects, income and expenses. I'm not interested in 21 concerns about the financial issues.
22 'client information, or what's going on there. 22 Thankyou.
23 THECOURT: Okay. 23 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.
24 MR. REYNOLDS: That's just not going to be 24 Ms. Scarlett.
25 productive for us. 25 MS. SCARLETT: YourHonor.l --
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COLIRTREPORTERS. INC.

(305) 3s8-8875
Page25 Page27
I THE COURT: Do you have up to date tax I MR. ZIMMERER: But in any event, it's my
2 returns from Mr. Picazio? 2 understanding - it's been represented to me that the
a
J MS. SCARLETT: No, Your Honor, the debtor 3 debtor has his accountant working on that.
4 actually filed a motion to extend the time. As Your 4 THE COURT: And what is the deadline that
5 Honor knows, we were in front of you perhaps on 5 you're now seeking?
6 another matter, and the Court had given Mr. Picazio 6 MR. ZIMMERER: I don't know,I'd have to
7 until April 20th to provide the missing tax retums. 7 talkto my client.
8 THE COURT: Yes, and that was six days ago, 8 THE COURT: What does your motion say?
9 what do you have? 9 MR. ZIMMERER: It doesn't ask for a
10 MS. SCARLETT: We have not received any tax l0 specific deadline, itjust --
l1 refums, Your f,{onor. As I stated, the debto_r did 11 THE COURT: Give me a good reason why I
12 file a motion to extend the time. 12 shouldn't dismiss this case.
13 THE COURT: And when was that motion filed? 13 MR. ZIMMERER: It's because my
14 Didn't Mr. Picazio ask for an extension until April l4 understanding is he doesn't have to provide prior
15 20th? 15 years in reading the Code, but --
t6 MS. SCARLETT: Yes, Your Honor, you're 16 THE COURT: Okay. What section of the Code
t7 correct, and on the 20th, they filed a motion to l7 are you relying on for that proposition?
r8 extend the time. I was told that they were being 18 MR. ZIMMERER: Debtor's duties under
t9 prepared, but they were not complete. 19 Chapter 5, so it would be -- is it 521 or 541? My
20 MR. HOWELL: And for the record, the motion 20 understanding was he was only supposed to supply the
2l to extend time to submit tax retums was filed on 21 cunent year's tax return.
22 April22nd at Docket Entry 77. 22 My client does want to say something, Your
23 THE COURT: Okay. Thankyou. 23 Honor, if it's --
24 Mr. Zimmerer, why are the tax returns not 24 THE COURT: I'll listen to you,
25 filed? 25 Mr. Zimmerer. Have your client tell you what he
Page26 Page28
1 MR. ZIMMERER: lt's my -- it's been I wants conveyed.

2 represented to me that it's been in the height of tax 2 MR. ZIMMERER: Your Honor, it's my
3 season, so it was April lTth - J understanding that the debtor -
4 THE COURT: Demonstrably, ifs the height 4 THE COIJRT: It's your understanding of
5 of tax season, any blithering idiot in the world 5 what?
6 knows -- or at least in the United States knows that 6 MR. ZIMMERER: That his 1l20Ss, his
7 fact. The debtor had an obligation to file tax 7 corporate tax returns, have been prepared, the last
8 retums, the debtor has an obligation to provide tax 8 thing they're waiting on, he's requesting until next
9 retums. The singular year for which thdre is any 9 Friday, and the last thing he's waiting on is to
10 excuse that the tax return may not have been filed to 10 -
basically look at his wife had filed -
I1 date is 2011, talk to me about prior years. ll Mrs. Picazio had filed married filing separately, so
l2 MR. ZIMMERER: My understanding is they t2 in order to properly file his 1040s, the accountant
l3 hadn't been prepared, the debtor is trying to get his l3 needs to analyze Mrs. Picazio's tax retums in order
14 accountant to focus on -- he's got S corporations, t4 to prepare Mr. Picazio's individual 1040s.
l5 all the entities that he operates his businesses l5 So it's my understanding that the 1 120Ss
16 through, so in order to ,provide his Form I 040s, it's l6 have been filed -
l7 my understanding he has to get his I 120Ss done for l7 MRS. PICAZIO: Have been filed?
l8 his S corporations. 18 MR. ZIMMERER: Prepared,l'm sorry,
19 I was originally under the impression that l9 prepared.
20 the debtor, you know, wasn't required to provide tax 20 THE COURT: Why haven't they been filed?
2l retums for prior years in my reading of the Code, I 21 MR. ZIMMERER: I'm not -- | think he's just
22 could be totally mistaken, but my understanding was 22 waiting to put them all together. I don't know what
23 in a Chapter I 1 you gnly had to provide the current 23 the status of that is, but it's my understanding that
2+ year. 24 he can provide this by next Friday, which would be
25 THE COURT: Oh, piffle. 25 roughly five days would be the request.
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC,

(30s) 358-887s
Page29 Page 3l
1 THE COURT: So the only extension that is .l MR. SCOTT: Your Honor, I would just ask
2 sought by the debtor is an extension until May 4th, 2 that in the event Your Honor is inclined to give them
3 2012-- 3 -
this five day, seven day extension, that it be
4 MR. ZIMMERER: That is conect. 4 that the order state that upon failure to comply, the
5 THE COURT: -- for the filing of all tax 5 case will be dismissed with 180 day prejudice period,
6 retums that have not been filed by Mr. Picazio and 6 or whatever Your Honor's standard language is for
7 any entity in which he has an interest? 7 dismissals. And while that mav be harsh. I think in
8 MR. ZIMMERER: Correct. 8 the circumstances wh6re we have six, seven years
9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honor, I'd just like to 9 missing, they're asking for extensions and they
l0 get on the record -- 10 haven't complied with other deadlines of this Court,
II THE COURT: Mr. Scott. I I that this should be the last strawo as it were, for
12 MR. SCOTT: I apologize for interrupting, 12 this tax issue.
13 Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Ms. Scarlett.
14 THE COURT: That's okay. 14 MS. SCARLETT: Your Honor, the extension to
15 MR. SCOTT: Matthew Scott here forthe l5 May 4th, we have no objection to that, Your Honor --
16 Burguns. I'd just like to get on the record which 16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 years we're talking about that he hasn't filed, l7 MS. SCARLETT: * to supply the tax
18 because I've heard that it's six years or seven l8 returns.
19 years, so just for the record, which years are we l9 THE COURT: Then I will authorize - I will
20 talking about? 20 grant the motion that was filed on April 22nd, we'll
2l MR. ZIMMERER: '05 forward -- 21 enter a text only order that will appear on the
22 THE COURT: So no tax retum -- 22 docket today that will provide that the tax return
23 MR. ZIMMERER: -- forthe Form 1040. I 23 extension sought by the debtor for the filing and
24 didn't mean to intemrpt, but for the Form 1040. 24 service on the United States Trustee and Mr. Scott
25 I'm not sure about the 1120Ss, I'd have to, I guess, 25 will be accomplished no later than May 4th,2012,
Page 30 , page 32
I talk to someone else, but for the individual tax I that will be all Form 1040s for years 2005 and
2 returns, I did provide his 2004 transcript ofthat 2 subsequent, and all 1120s for2010 and201l, and that
3 return, which I had found, tbrough the IRS. 3 in the event the United States Trustee does not
4 THE COURT: A return was filed for what 4 receive those documents no later than April -- I'm
5 year? 5 sorry, May 4th, 20l2,that the United States Trustee
6 MS. SIMPSON: 2004, married filing jointly, 6 is instructed to upload an order -- an ex parte
7 and I have the tanscript of it from the IRS, that I 7 motion and an order dismissing the case for -- with
8 was able to get from the IRS. And I provided a 2003 8 180 days prejudice. You just can't gain the system
9 return, I believe, to the trustee's office. 9 this way, and I don't understand it.
t0 THE COURT: Okay. So there are no 1040s 10 So, Ms. Scarlett, if you would - we will
ll for 2005 or subsequent years? I I {o the text only order, but if you would undertake to
t2 MR. ZIMMERER: That's correct. And for his 12 be the monitor, since that isn't a particularly good
13 business, Commercial Hood, he should have them filed 13 function for us, to determine that the tax retums,
l4 through 2009 presently, and then the -- 14 in fact, have been provided to you and.filed by next
15 THE COURT: Have they been filed through 15 Friday.
r6 20092 16 Now, then, in respect of the
17 MR. ZIMMERER: Yes, yes, that's correct. 17 confidentialig motions, what else does anyone have
r8 THE COURT: When were they filed? l8 to say?
19 MR. ZIMMERER: Several months ago. 19 MR. ZIMMERER: Your Honor, just in
20 THE COURT: Okay. And 2010 and 201I are 20 response, it does seem a bit attenuated to take Brian
21 going to be filed by next Friday? 2l Thompson's. I do agree with the confidentiality
22 MR. ZIMMERER: Correcl yes, May 4th, I 22 order. I was never contacted in reference to even
23 believe the Court said. 23 schedule these examinations, all I received was a
24 THE COURT: Yes. Anyone want to comment on 24 notice of it, so --
25 that request now that it's been fleshed out? 25 THE COURT: You didn't - there were no
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC,

(305) 358-887s
Page 33 Page 35
I phone calls back and forth? I it does appear to us that there are a group ofcash
2 MR. ZIMMERER: No one make aphone callto 2 businesses, we don't know where the cash is going.
a
J me, I just received a notice of examination by ECF. 3 My understanding is,'from the investigation
4 THE COURT: Okay. 4 I performed, that 2101 Middle River Drive house that
5 MR. ZIMMERER: And I am missing another 5 they're living in where they have a mortgage that's
6 hearing today and, of course, I'm always honored to 6 been foreclosed, they haven't paid mortgage payments
7 be.here, but it wasn't coordinated with my schedule 7 in several years, and my understanding is thatthe
8 to begin with. I can make myself available ifthey 8 mortgage company is out 300,000 in interest and
9 do go forward but, you know -- and I did speak with 9 they've advanced 200,000 in tax payments and
l0 the FBI agent, as well, who confirmed - I didn't 10 insurance payments on the property.
ll have a long conversation with him, but I did have an I I So I -- we want to see where does the money
t2 individual represent himself as an FBI agenf who 12 go, because it doesn't seem to be going to the places
13 represented a lot of what Mrs. Picazio had 13 where you would think. The IRS has a 500,000 claim,
t4 said. My understanding is the FBI agent represented 14 they haven't filed taxes.
t5 that he had spoken to the trustee, as well, the 15 So we want to see the information come out.
l6 United States Trustee, perhaps Ms. Scarlett,I'm not 16 Thankyou, YourHonor.
l7 sure about that. I just think the law firm was a l7 THE COURT: Thankyou.
18 little too far, in addition to Brian Thompson, I 18 Okay. I'm going to direct that -- I'm
19 don't think it should be allowed, and I'll stand on 19 going to grant the motions for protective order to
20 that, Your Honor. 20 the extent that I will require that the discovery
21 THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else want to be 2l pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 of Mr. Thompson and
22 heard in connection with that matter? 22 of Mrs. Picazio and her law firm be subject to
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honor, just briefly, we 23 confidentiality agreements, that no one be provided
24 made sure to include in our notices for both that if 24 the information who is not a pdrty and has executed
25 anyone had an issue with the timing, they could give 25 the confidentiality agreements, and that the
page 34 Page 36
1 us a call, and we would be willing to reschedule, I I information be restricted, at this point, to the
2 stand by that today. 2 lawyers who are involved, and if you want to expand
3 For all future scheduling of these exams, 3 the list by stipulation to include forensic
4 Ill make sure to give the debtor a call, but frankly 4 accountants and people like that, I would expect you
5 we anticipated these motions for protective order 5 to be able to work out the terms ofthat.
6 would be coming. 6 I appreciate that this is an intrusion into
7 TI{E COURT: Okay. Mr. Broeker, do you have 7 Mrs. Picazio's life and to her law firm's business
8 something to add? 8 bffairs, but there's no -- there's going to be.no
9 MR. BROEKER: I'm not sure if I have 9 examination of client files. There will be
10 standing to make comments because we haven't filed a 10 identification of clients for purposes of determining
11 proof of claim, I do represent a creditor that's I 1 the sources and uses offunds that come into her law
12 listed on the schedules. But we're in favor of 12 firmo because in a situation in which the allegation
13 having the debtor comply. I appreciate Your Honor l3 has been made by Mrs. Picazio that she subsidizes
l4 giving him more time to file his tax returns, because 14 her husband's either business or certainly life,
15 we want to see those tax retums. We would want to 15 where the money comes into Mr. Picazio is a relevant
16 see discovery go forward. 16 question under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, which is
l7 To the extent that some protection is 17 expressly a fishing expedition.
18 necessary, then reasonable protection is fine with l8 Now, I expect you all to work out a
l9 us. I'd be happy to sign a confidentiality agreement 19 confidentiality agreement. If you can't, somebody
20 and enter into it. 20 file a motion, and we'll have another hearing, and
21 As far as the law firm goes, in our 2l I'll apply my blue pen to whatever forms of documents
22 litigation in state court, Mrs. Picazio was 22 you put together, but you don't really want me to do
23 representing the debtor, we'd be interested to see 23 that, and your professionalism needs to come to the
24 how much money the debtor paid to Mrs. Picazio's law 24 fore.
25 firm through his businesses forpurposes ofthat, and 25 Now, I'm going to need orders on the
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURTREPORTERS. INC.

(305) 358-887s
Page 37 Page 39
I motions for protective order. Mr. Scott, you are I THE COURT: Mr. Picazio.
2 effectively the prevailing party on those, but it 2 MRS. PICAZIO: Mr. Thompson's father-in-law
3 would not shock me if there were disagreements as to J just passed away, and they may be leaving, he and his
4 the form of order. Mr. Howell will give you his 4 wife, if not today, tomorrow, they're trying to seek
5 business card, if there's an agreement as to the 5 out plane tickets now, they have to fly to Colombia
6 form, upload it. If there is no agreement as to the 6 for a funeral.
7 form, upload it, upload what you wish on the docket, 7 THECOURT: Okay.
8 and e-mail them to Mr. Howell, and we'll sort it 8 MR. SCOTT: Understood. We'll reschedule,
9 through. But let's get this case off to a somewhat 9 Your Honor.
l0 better start than it's already had, and get these 10 THE COURT: Reschedule. I don't expect the
1l things - get this moving ahead. ll housekeeping issues after we sort of set some ground
12 MRS. PICAZIO: Your Honor -- 12 rules today.
13 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. 13 MR. SCOTT: Correct, Your Honor, we'll
14 MRS. PICAZIO: Excuse me,l'm so sorry,I 14 handle that, thanks.
15 would request that the deposition duces tecum is at 15 THE COURT: Okay. Thankyou.
16 my law office. I have all of my files there, and I l6 (Thereupon, the hearing was concluded.)
17 could quickly run to get something that could 17
18 supplement any questions they had. My staff is 18
19 there, we would be happy to provide lunch for 19
20 everyone, and if they could do it in my conference 20
2l room, including Mr. Reynolds, ifhe'd like to be 21
22 there,I'll buy him lunch, too, and -- 22
23 MR. REYNOLDS: We have no objection to 23
24 that, Your Honor, especially the lunch. 24
25 THE COURT: That makes perfect sense. 25
Page 38 . Paee 40
I There are several of us in the room, Mr. Reynolds, I CERTIFICATION

2 who don't miss many meals. I can say that covered in 2
J my black moo moo. Fine. I would expect that kind of 3 State of Florida:
4 cooperation among the professionals, that's normal. 4 County of Dade:
5 MRS. PICAZIO: Thank you.
5,
6 l, BONNIE TANNENBAUM, Shorthand Reporter
6 ,THE COURT: So, I'll look for the orders 7 andNotary Public in and fortheStateof Florida
7 from you, Mr. Scott. 8 at Large, do hereby certi$ that the foregoing
8 MR. HOWELL: And then you've directed me to 9 proceedings were taken before me at the date and
9 do the order on Number 77 regardingthe tax retums. l0 place as stated in thecaption heretoonPage l;
l0 THE COURT: Exactly. We will do atext l1 that the foregoing computer-aided transcription is a
ll only order on Number 77,the motion to extend the tax 12 true record of my stenographic notes taken at said I
t2 deadlines. l3 proceedings.
13 What else, if anything, do we need to do
l4 WITNESS my hand this 7th day ofMay,
l4 this morning?
t5 2012.
t6
15 MR. SCOTT: I just wanted to clarify, so t7
l6 you're available, Mr. Thompson is available, and BONNIE TANNENBAUM
l7 Mrs. Picazio is available for tomorrow, based on -- l8 Court Reporter and Notary Public
l8 MRS. PICAZIO: I have paid for me and in and for the State of Florida atLarge
t9 members of my staffto attend a raising the bar 19 Commission Number: DD 968452
20 seminar tomorrow. I would really like to attend it, Expires: June22,2074
20
2l' and it's already paid for. If I could, even within 21
22 the next two weeks, I could make myself available,
22
23 and have all of the information to you? 23
)d THE COURT: Work it out, gang. 24
25 MR. SCOTT: That's fine. Thank vou. 25
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURTREPORTERS, INC.
(305) 358-887s
CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 11-1 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 19
National Center for Disaster Fraud

Baton Rouge, LA
70821-4909
RERq}},FD
Chief Mclnerney, ?0\\
b:./ '
BACKGROT]ND
I am a former news reporter; now an investigative journalist and
",,nsp*il*-t3li;l1l3l*f,Su*-
I am presently the Plaintiff in Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al. - - U.S. District
of Minnesota case number 14 - cv - 2970- (DWFiLIB) - - 42 - u.s.c. l9g3
(Deprivation of Rights).
-
PURPOSE
I am contacting you today to report a loan fraud money laundering scheme connected to
disaster relief funds that has been partially exposed in East Grand Forks, Minnesota.
East Grand Forks city employees and elected leaders are using their positions to steal
govemment 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, z}l4,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.
Atternpts 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.
They got caught as result of the audit. If they had not gotten caught, the statute of
limitations would have run out in October of 2014.
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.
SEPt0
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, }OL4,EGF city administrator David Murphytold WDAZ news that city
officials met with representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises and their "attorney''.
However- to this very day - Murphy and city ofEcials will not disclose who Boardwalk
Enterprises' attomey was on yltaY 7,2014.
Facts and circumstances indicate that EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad may have been
the attorney for BOTH the City of EGF and Boardwalk Enterprises at the May 7,2014,
meeting. Some speculate Ronald Galstad was actually amember of the Boardwalk
Enterprises ownership goup because his private office was recently erected in the
swanky Boardwalk entertainment complex that was built with unpaid loan money.
Galstad was the attomey for the City of EGF ovei the ten years that everything was kept
quiet while the statute of limitations slowlywinded down.
East Grand Forks and Grand Forks are a river city and the govemment funds that flowed
in for disaster relief for the 1997 flood are enoflnous - in the hundreds of millions.
The President of the Grand Cities (Grand Forks/East Grand Forks) Charnber of
Commerce, Gary Wilfahrt, attempted to intimidate me with an extremely hostile email
that told me the attention I was calling to this was 'unproductive' whereupon he insulted
me beyond all reason. Wilfahrt and Galstad both sit on the Executive Committee of the
Grand Cities Chamber of Commerce.
At present - it is clear that a massive fraud and money laundering scheme has been
exposed. However - it appears city officials are attempting to cover it up and heat it as if
it is simply an innocuous unpaid debt situation.
The amount of felonies that have taken place are countless.
I hope this information will be beneficial to the National Center For Disaster Fraud.
Respectfully,
Attached: Audit, Letter to Auditor
PS - the following web page contains useful information

http ://writeinto action. com/IvIEDIA %20KlT %2 0LAWSUIT%20RES OURCE.html

320 17th Street N.W.
unl-E ff r- /
East Grand Forks, MN satzt
2r8 .'t73.1299
21"8.230.L59-l (cell)
thofmsethGwiktef. com
www. writeintoaction . com
135. Facts show interstate commerce is involved in the fraud and money
laundering because it involves Minnesota and North Dakota (at the least).
136. Facts show that the City of EGFPD, and the EGF city attorney, Ronald
Galstad, have been in extensive communication with, and doing special favors
for, Kim and Michael Picazio, Flori.da. Michael Picazio was abusiness partner
with RICO convict Scott Rothstein in abiofuels business called Alternative
Biotuel Technologies (ABT).
137. ABT appears on the FBI's list of seizures from the Scott Rothstein RICO
investigation. It is the same company William Staubs said Florida Governor
Charlie Crist was involved in with Scott Rothstein, Michael Picazio, and Kim
Picazio. It is the same company Kim Picazio referred to when she told Jeremiah
Regan she was going to receive $231 Million.
138. Facts show Plaintiffis victim of witness intimidation due to information

a
and facts acquired in the course of PlaintifPs journalism endeavors that threatened
local and non-local organized crime.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIF',F'
FIRST CLAIM T'OR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 - Deprivation of Rights
(Against Ronald Galstad, Rodney Hajicek, Michael LaCoursiere, Aeisso Schrage,
and City of East Grand Forks Police)
.THE FLORIDA DIVORCE COURT SCHEME'
139. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates all actions taken by

Defendant(s) as set forth in the Statement of Facts regarding the Florida Divorce
Court Scheme and all subsequent acts by Defendant(s) to violate PlaintifPs rights.
140. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that:
t Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage of any state or tercitory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be
subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
constitution and law shall be liable to the pariy injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or otlter appropriate proceedingfor redress . . .
l4t. Plaintiffhad the following clearly established riehts at the time of the
complained of conduct:
a. the right to be free from discrimination by police under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. $ 1981; and,
b. the right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. 1981; and
c. the right to exercise his constitutional rights of free speech and press under the
First Amendment without retaliation; and,
d. the right to be free from government infringement on his right to keep and bear
arms under the Second Amendment; and,
e. the riglrt to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments; and, )
f. the right to a trial by jury; and,

(} the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth
Amendment.
I42. PlaintifPs rights were violated:
1) September of 2011 - Rodney Hajicek CONTINUED to assist Kim Picazio in their

mutual attempts to deprive Plaintiffof his rights, which originally BEGAN in
2009.
2) Rodney Hajicek assisted Kim Picazio in her bid to fraudulently obtain a domestic
violence protection order against Plaintifffrom a Florida divorce court. Hajicek
assisted Picazio by willfully, with malice and forethought, depriving Plaintiffof
public records that proved Plaintiff(who had never personally met Kim Picazio)
was innocent of the ridiculous allegations being made by Picazio against Plaintiff
in a divorce court on the other side of the United States. Hajicek deliberately
withheld police reports and records from Plaintiff that proved Kim Picazio never
made the accusations about Plaintiff to the EGFPD, which she subsequently made
to a Florida divorce courtjudge.
3) Rodney Hajicek ignored death threats made against Plaintiffby Kim Picazio's
private investigator William Staubs, should Plaintiffattend the Florida hearing
and defend himself in person and made no record of the reports Plaintiffmade
regarding the threats.
.
4) The fact that Rodney Hajicek received PlaintifPs records requests is evidenced by
the police incident reports Plaintiffwas instructed to go pick up at the police
station onl2l74/72 during the middle of the raid on his home-office. The reports
were printed out on l\l24lll and kept hidden for over a year. This act shows the
forethought and depravity of the EGFPD.
s) 09119111 - Rodney Hajicek SUCCEEDED in his plan to violate PlaintifPs rights

to freedom ofpress and speech when the assistance he provided Kim Picazio
resulted in Kim Picazio successfully obtaining a domestic violence protection
order from a Florida divorce court, which set forth a court order focused squarely
on Plaintiff s publication, book, and press rights.
6) 09ll9lt1 - Rodney Hajicek violated PlaintifPs right to Keep and Bear Arms
because the Florida court order stated Plaintiff was required to surrender all ofhis
firearms, ammunition, and permits to the Broward County Sheriff s Office; this
despite Plaintiffbeing charged with no crime whatsoever in either state.
7) 1L121111 Ronald Galstad and Rodney Hajicek violated PlaintifPs press, speech,
-
and due process rights, by using the fraudulently obtained Florida court order to
maliciously prosecute Plaintiff without Venue.
S) tll22l11 - Ronald Galstad and Rodney Hajicek's actions further violated

PlaintifPs freedom of speech and press rights because their actions resulted in
Plaintiffbeing forbidden from publishing anything at all, regarding ANYTHING,
on the Web, between 11122111 and l0l29ll2, as a condition of Plaintiff s release
from jail.
9) 10/29/72- Ronald Galstad violated PlaintifPs right to a fair ffial and deprived
him of facing his accuser when he conspired with Michael LaCoursiere to
threaten Plaintiffwith false testimony from two police officers that were going to
lie on the witness stand if Plaintiffdidn't accept an Alford plea.
l0) l0/2g/I2 -Ronald Galstad and Michael LaCoursiere violated PlaintifPs right to
freedom of press and speech because their coercion and illegal conduct resulted in
a court order disallowing Plaintiffto promote or sell his legally published book
"In Re: Haleigh Cummings (the shocking truth revealed)" on his own website.
11)12114112 - The EGFPD and Michael LaCoursiere violated PlaintifPs right to

attorney client privilege, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and
seizure, when they coordinated to have the EGFPD listen outside Plaintiffs door
while he spoke with LaCoursiere on the telephone, and then storm PlaintifPs
home-office and seize his joumalism equipment and hard-drive immediately after
he got off the telephone.
12)l2ll4ll2 - Galstad, Hajicek, LaCoursiere, Aeisso Schrage, and the EGFPD

violated PlaintifPs Due Process rights when they collectively infringed upon
PlaintifPs Life, Liberty, and Property through all of their collective actions.
143. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were
acting under the color of state law in their official capacity and their acts or
omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
144. Any reasonable police officer, attorney, or govemment employee knew or

should have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as
they were clearly established at that time.
145. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully,

malicious1y,inbadfaith,andinreck1essdisregardofPlaintiffsfedera11y
. protected constitutional rights.
1.46. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to PlaintifPs rights and
their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiffsevere emotional and
mental injuries.
147. The acts or omissions of all individual Defend#s were moving forces
behind PlaintifP s injuries.
148. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each
other.
149. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally

deprived Plaintiffof his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
150. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the
complained of conduct.
151. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting
pursuant to municipaVcounty custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation,
widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
152. As aproximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffhas

suffered economic, mental, and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses
as described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in
amounts to be determined at trial.
153. On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future eamings and
impaired earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained sequelae of his
situation.
154. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special

damages, Plaintiffis entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually
name Defendants under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, in that the actions of each of these
individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or
wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 - Deprivation of Rights
(Against Ronald Galstad, Rodney Hajicek, Michael LaCoursiere, Aeisso Schrage,
Michael Norland, Barb Erdman, and City of East Grand Forks Police)
.THE FAKE BCA RAID - SECRET SEARCH OF JOURNALIST'S HARD.DRIVE
_ MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY'
155. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates all actions taken by

Defendant(s) as set forth in the Statement of Facts regarding the fake BCA raid -
secret search ofjournalist's hard-drive - Florida divorce court scheme and all
subsequent acts by Defendant(s) to violate PlaintifPs rights.
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be
subjected any citizen of the United States or other personwithin the jurisdiction
constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other appropriateproceedingfor redress . . .
157. Plaintiffhad the following clearly established rights at the time of the
a. the right to be free from discriminationbypolice under the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. $ 1981; and,
b. the right to exercise his constitutional rights of free speech and press under the
c. the right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments; and,
d. the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth
Amendment; and,
e. the right to life, liberty, and property under the Fourteenth Amendment.
1) Between l2l14ll2 and03l29l13 there is no police record that provides any

indication whatsoever of the whereabouts of PlaintifPs seized property. On
03129113 Sgt. Michael drafted a very suspicious SherifPs Incident Report that
mentions the property. However, Norland never actually acknowledges physical
sight or possession of the hard-drive untiI04l02ll3. Police Chief Michael
Hedlund admits in writing that his Police Departrnent kept to 'Chain of Evidence'
to establish the location or custody of PlaintifPs property and computer hard-
drive. Hedlund further states the Polk County SherifPs Office (PCSO) kept no
records.either. The Sheriff s Office clerk further advises that no 'Chain of
Evidence' or any other documentation was kept regarding the hard drive and
property.
2) Sgt. Michael Norland states he searched PlaintifPs hard-drive. However, he has

no 'Chain of Evidence' or 'Record of Examination' to demonstrate where the
hard-drive was before 04102/13; what he was lookingat; and/or what he was
'searching' for. Norland had no legal warrant or authorization of any kind to scour
PlaintifPs hard-drive and personal files. Ronald Galstad's statements to
Honorable Yon in open court on January 4,2013, regarding the BCA needing a
separate warrant to forensically examine PlaintifPs hard-drive, proves the
Wanant used to SEIZE and RETAIN PlaintifPs property did NOT contain any
legal authoizationto perform a carte blanche search of PlaintifPs hard-drive.
3) The adminishator's log of PlaintifPs computer revealed the computer had been
activated on I2l28ll2 while in police custody. SEE EXHIBIT T Neither the
EGFPD nor the PCSO can provide any explanation for who activated the
.
computer or what they did with it. Police Chief Michael Hedlund cannot produce
a 'Record of Examination' to explain who searched the computer and/or made
changes to it. The computer was activated on l2l28lI2 by Defendant John Doe.
The careful language used by Norland in his Sheriff s Report shows the agencies
being run by Michael Hedlund and Barb Erdman are both trying to avoid
admitting possession of the hard-drive on l2l28ll2.
4) On04/26113 the EGFPD returned Plaintiff s propertyby Order of the Court.

When Plaintiffattempted to tum on his computer it would not start. He looked
inside and wires were unplugged and moved around. Plaintiffre-situated the wires
and started the computer. It acted erratically. He made a screenshot of the
administrator log. After he shut the computer off it never started again. Specialists
at Best Buy said the contents can only be recovered in a forensic lab.
5) Ronald Galstad, the prosecutor for the State of Minnesota told Judge Yon in open
Court that the BCA needed another wa:rant to search the hard-drive. Yet - when
confronted,'Barb Erdman professed to believe her deputy had the legal authority
and right to search the hard-drive. Barb Erdman violated PlaintifPs rights.
158. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were
acting under the color of state law in their official capacity and their acts or
omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
159. Any reasonable police officer, attorney, or govemment employee knew or


maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of PlaintifPs federally
protected constitutional rights.
161. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to PlaintifPs rights and
their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiffsevere emotional and
mental injuries.
162. Defendant's invaded Plaintiffs privacy when they entered into hard-
drive to read, observe, and view any such thing they chose. The hard-drive
contained extremely private healthcare files and information about Plaintiff
and his children protected by HIPPA; personal records; legal documentsl
legal work product from multiple open court files where Plaintiff was Pro Sel
diary; thoughts and spirifual reflectionsl photos; journalism work product;

emailsl names and addresses of personal contacts and confidential media
sources. The fact that Defendant's would violate this privacy shocks the
conscience of the average person.
163. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces
behind PlaintifP s injuries.
164. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each
other.

deprived Plaintiffof his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
complained of conduct.
widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions pertaining to. Plaintiff.
168. As aproximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffhas

suffered property loss, emotional injuries, health issues, and other damages and
losses as described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in
169. On information and belief, Plaintiffmay suffer lost future eamings and
situation.
170. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special

damages, Plaintiffis entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually
name Defendants under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, in that the actions of ebch of these
TI{IRD CLAIM F'OR RELIEF'

42 U.S.C. 1983 - Depriyation of Rights
(Against James Richter, David Murphy, and Jeannette Ringuette)
.TAMPERING WITH A FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK_ SHREDDING
FEDERAL DOCUMENTS _ DEPRTVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND
PROPERTY'
l7l. Plaintiffhereby re-alleges and incorporates all actions taken by

Defendant(s) as set forth Statement of Facts regarding tampering with a federal
background check - shredding federal documents - deprivation of life, liberty,

and property, and all subsequent acts by Defendant(s) to violate PlaintifPs rights.
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custotn or
usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be
subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other appropriate proceedingfor redress . . .
173. Plaintiffhad the following clearly established rights at the time of the
a. the right to exercise his constitutional rights of free speech and press under the
b. the right to make and enforce contracts 42 U.S.C. 1981, and;
c. the right to life, liberty, and propertyunder the Fourteenth Amendment.
I74. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were
acting under the color of state law and/or in their official capacity and their acts or
omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or ernployment.
I75. Any reasonable police officer, attomey, or goveilrment employee knew or


maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff s federally
protected constitutional rights.
177. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to PlaintifPs rights and
their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiffsevere emotional,
mental, and economic injuries.
178. The.acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces

behind Plaintiff s injuries.
179. Facts and circumstances show these individual Defendants acted in

concert and joint action and/or with knowledge each other and supported each
other through their acts and/or omissions.'

deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
complained of conduct
widespread habit, usage, or practice in theii actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
183. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

184. On information and beliei Plaintiffmay suffer lost future eamings and
situation.
185. In addition to compensatory economic, consequential and special

damages, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually
F'OURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF'

- Deprivation of Rights
42 U.S.C. 1983
'
(Rrco) .
186. Information, belief, facts, and circumstances clearly demonstrate Plaintiff

is a perpetual victim of Defendant(s) that are in violation of RICO.
187. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, ilaintiffhas

188.- On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings and
situation.
189. In addition to compensatory economic, consequential and special

damiges, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually
PRAYER F'OR RELIEF'

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
a) That process issue and this court take jurisdiction over this case;
b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendants, mandating Defendant's
obedience to the laws enumerated herein;
c) enter judgment against Defendants, and for Plaintiff awarding compensatory and
punitive damages to Plaintiff for Defendant's violations of laws enumerated
herein;
d) grant such other further relief as being just and proper under the circumstances.
DEMAIID FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues set forth herein which are so triable.
DATED this 8th day of Septernber, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted,

Pro Se
320 nth StreetN.W.

Unit 17
East Grand Forks. MN
s6721
2r8.773.1299
2r8.230.1597 (cell)
Sep{"r,".1a'er 8,, fc\9
\tlh,rd,S $r.1/ $#-
q 8-t'-j
'&"rt^jKloiu W
*l
EXHIBIT A
BETWEEN
SAMPLES OF EMAILS DEMONSTRATING MEDIA RELATIONSHIP
Flnnrrnm AND ATToRNEY KIM PICMIo'
I
i
I
:s
r
:l
,r
I
,I
I
';:
'ra
t'r#-"
t: :: ::" l
:. .:: ,itJr:::: : r: .r: :'| :
'...
.:::: : :t: : rt :: ,1.::

i'.:::::::::]::::':::lj:..,:::."l:]:]:l"j].:j
{
' . t...
'.iir::.;i,
,$q
',,$'T
'I bft"
; . S"l
*,
fi,;
*
-:
::
EXFIBTT B
poLIcE INCIAENT nepoRT FILED BY LT. RODNEY HAJICEK ESTABLISHING

THE EGFPD'S IMPROPER EFFORTS TO INTIUENCE A NEIVS REPORTER
ffi
$" j,,':,Erigr cRANDiotRK A"FTIUEN}
ffi f :. ;' lNlTlAL COM
*"
fr
1'
ili
Y.igi E.No
1: -.9rq.*
.'{ 'r
an:attdinEy:fKtrg:fl6ri-iia1i9ll5 trnd i6portsthratsh'e is represenilng;the m0

e'timminbs.aod has':hdeil.repeiv-inS:disttjibihd e:mdilS fronl;Timolhy Hplm
gh h,e iewritins not.true

lfr tli!'cZise,[n"]
dftliE.oqnfstre'rnay;fivqe,ri.oil issue,' n
Xi
EXHIBIT C
POLICE INCIDENT REPORT FILED BY EGFPD OFFICER THAT ART HARRIS IS

CONTACTINCTTIF LOCAL MEDIA AND CAUSING FEAR.,
THIS HGIIBIT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE EGFPD REDACTEE THE NAME OF A}'I
ADULT CALLER AS A SPECIAL FAVOR, :i
i,
rrorn l-oiEfr6o5:l
Incident Loi:a{gn
;
F"irs..iili'iptriilEY"ri s' fo
j.a{ .'; :.!

4,', -..' " !:i
:, :t i- ::i I
f .."#, " ;;'ii

.,iT
,dt;,.
l.* , jr{ivji
ii: r.;
''.:'
:.iti: ,
.,'j'
i*
1
,t"
',':'ll*'';,",. ,.;
''. \i!;:: . :r- .; Vi
;
t,l
;,.
r',l: ,:
.ff
rCase Numbdr
tru neegRrER;,WtiO OAt

IEF_GIVI4,ry'91_4SI4.s.[EP:
't,T ARI
WT_tr:W BlrE" Ai lE
ti
q.''
.I
*F;' NN,
,.l1
rl. il.
' "l
ifi
t.
r.
t
L
ir
! t,'
r1
f
::
t
.. ,r: I
[.
't
I
4
*
.&
t
.t1 {i
t;
:46
,fit
I
t,
Ii
t
J
;,ll
c11
Apiieizot2 o3i11,PMi
DXHIBIT'D
EIVIAIL FROM ART HARRIS TO LT. RODNEY HANCNT NPVTSN{C HAJICEK

THAT FBI IS FOLLOWING l]P ON INFORMATION THEY ARE RECETVING
nirou PLAINTIFF
'l
E)GIBIT E
EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WORKED BRIEFLY FOR CITY (CRAND FORKS/EAST

GRAND FORKS METROPOLITA}I PLANNING ORGANIZATIO}D.
if,P,"rT.3S": ffiffi*;Wffi
,'SYi":'.t'^,
r'itt l 's,
-:
: .F *:
trrl
f:+$tffililri;;#;
.
'1ffi1$rt$""",
Hdesd
i*f .tf,.4f.i ffi :ffi +;ffi r*,p;.*:uiffi$f g*sipggg
+$ff'.;;
ffi
t' -r#ffiiffi:*t$i* .il,'"",:n#l#
-'1,
:,j..di* 1:.i,, 'riril; ;,
,t*ti
... . EXHIBIT F
aFFIDAVIT Or wl,lntrn' stlugs.
{
t
ild :s:$
CASE ril':
0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB
:.ai:r:g *l Document
I rt # *. 4
. 11-2 Filed 09/10/14 Page 14 of 25
{ fl:r ll/h
?.0,1,1i''19i0,3j
ti,
VT75r84*{FQi ? zt^#
#
tt ii.
A$,tDAvra*o,sWtrr'IAubf IGEnESAlrnS
l: '' ,. -
, rc.:2^::.: $Pr11be;
Eiigeirc fn' mddihrl as lftotnu aS;6otite the:
t*orrlrq- In"t&B
Mv narae-isuWillian"li 4 ,, I
'golrlltY, Hun-tq; I
I
i1&
)\
i'*,* dieiliiotrd fafter" of'"{'yB childr'elxi
r."*'oHlbnitt
4.; i- asd.rc_-_a*honoraplgdiitchsr5$:
f uav-e:F€cued ia tb*Unipd Stafn*Na'vy';
f,
,i
g
i|!
;i2.." -'"- .
'ln theiinsiCiata: rm!'tlii} torcpmcindiS
ii;tfr;ffi iag"tb*"sissinschil+'
J'1r
zg!:l;10,;831 Lp-r0$ >1, 1-ffi'r&?;7736"t P Sltt
)
)
I was coatacte$'Q IA$;Hbnis:' !!e;was
Iri thg'eastY epdrrgof 2009 (Aprill,
Mrs ff*o-tmsotb'
"ang*"'tha$Ir ilas "7ir.n !o
g'
" j.ft''
fratre'l m#conttqtcd ty.Er+,&q?2ioi
'.#rf,t$D
iotcmetfrat 4e,
I.ine and mockbd me
dldibate
.l
n
'-!5; t:'.
*.s Document 11-2 Filed 09/10/14 Page 16 of 25
201;1'10=-051
a_.
1'0:00
a
rssesscs medi;'frrt4'ttrat egpo*- E*'-

ffif gffi-"frHiHd;*r'hr*-
HqI,q[gF Cuqgning.sl
22, *:i
i also,hc-lic'Y,b thatlitr-' 'f
irai*r
vierycd "e,*Paidincdia
on rt;l-!ieion*4s
ffii*;
.,;rn4:dfg'gttrliSi
w
of2oll, l cP.d&rcd
--ii--.t.r*tr
enib€r
*offtliirrawibsli
ilrcitgl in adeige'qf
29.,,
Nttt
truth.'rwealcdF- I
dfr.crveu t'hqgi is:
Fiearistl[i
? t u"* rrtg; ggrqq4i'S'ufe is foi"-iirygFt
\EA'il;
&li.
a ,.
,* L
:
E)mIBIT G
COURT ORDER FROM BROWARD COUNTY DTVORCE COURT ILLJGALLY

ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE LAWFULLY PUBLISFIED CONTENT'
::
':
.t
I
a
-t
/.1 t
i
i:
jj
f,
:l
I
:i
EXHIBIT E
RESPONSE BY CHTEE MICHAEL HEDLUND TO PI.AINTIFF'S FORMAL

COMPI..AINT REGARDING EGFPD'S DELIBERATE FAILIJRE TO HONOI.
REQUE ST FOR D OCUME-I'ITS.
,, I' EXEIBIT I
POLICE INCIDENT REPORTS THAT REVEAL EGFPD PRINTED OFF POLICE
INCIDENT REPORTS PER A DOCUMENT REQI.JEST BY PLAINTIFF; AND THEN
HID THE DOCUMENTS FOR OVERAYEAR.. FURTTTER COMPARISON SHOWS
TAN{PERING BY EGFPD.
-:
._4.
Ir;
It
ffi,
.lt
I$
tg
,tv
rl$
il&
{
fl,
{:
ifflrp
ti
;'l't
ll'
:l
t:
t,
r.
tl,@i-
ffil
D(HIBIT J
i
t; SEARCH WARRANT.
i ,o.
:t
:'
':
4, it\
*ra: l*"\i"
EXHIBIT K
SHERIFF' S INCIDENT REPORT...

!r. i:i,
' PoLk couNTY SHERIFF oFFlcE,

lNC|DENTngPOnf GaseNumberi
ll Juvenile Incldent CFS #
^,, ,;.,. Dale.Qo

p'om'.1-o-ffilio
omiTllffii-il 1
:l
Actual Localhn:
lncldentAddress
:
1
Clty, STZp rl
!1
:I
:.1
t{7
'J
{l
1l
i,t:
:.T,
.:iri
.{,
':lJ'
rtr:
{;
h
ir
I
t
r
;i
t
i:
t:
f.
t
,
"4.
,l
i
x
t
T
.I
!!i
{r
t:,;
);ir
{t
,i1
I!
ll
t
li Location
Lbeatlon.#2
sng Activity
No.PremlsesEniered | | Premlseslnhablted llYes BlNo
I Blas / Hate Crlmer
Type
farget Code
Afflllatlon
[tFound PtopertY
f
-c
:l
ti,
{
{.-
{
Page 2of7
Prlnlod:
il
t
rl
.j
:tr
t.
:it1
;*
::1,!i
ii
rtl:
'1.
erial Number:
.;# n Lost Propertlt Aseoclated Offensee
.:-lriJ.=:: t:
,cAs871692? ,: tf, Found Property
IitEgeiothr t:
,"h:==ff i1
Make
r"rrffi. f t,
*r :ti; I
t;
t:
I'
$
'i8
::
I
..t:
t'l
li
{i
.t
!i.
t
a
I
't:l
:l
iix
:l
!t
;l
€
i\
No. otVehlcles'
Stolen Cthor
Recoverqd
Page
Pilnted: i21212013
a
.!,
.{
f
ilI
JI
'l
?l
:i
?t,
RJuvenlle .*
|;Wi|trestiry
ll:s"t
r'f l
,,1;
i,l,
it,1
iiI
!f: i
4
l:
i.
"*.-91he-r,lD
-t
"l
il
iil
iil
..i:;
t!
,:r.
E
:tr
:ilt:
,s\.
&
5(
'll,
.{
s
a'
tltr
t:
:.
!.
t1
. .li ,.
d
i'
*
it
2
b
li
ti
li
F
tii
fi
I
Ui
t;
otBlrth . Age . . lllJuvenlle

nWlllTestify
-l
,I
t|t
:$
*..
.,1r,
;€
*;
Exceptlonal Clearanc€
tki
1.
f-Exceptional Clearance Date
,,T ::
'|.'' ,
E weapon ilotu"J"* tr'iot "
rnuoru.a
--.. QRevlewgd
,..
t'
;
r\.
Date 1402._ :i ii
Date h
i:
;.
i
,
i;
t;
'l!.
,'tt
T;
I
t,
l!
I
,
'l
t,
s
!,
Pdgo
Pdnted: l?J212013
1nE
I
il
,{,
s
L
€'
t
!
::
I
Release to Publlc II
r
l!
ffi5yit.hoonevHaj|cekw.|ththeEastGrandForksPo|lceDeaartment|nref6rencg
offlcer Aiesso s9!'.rra.s.9 wlt!!h9 turce
to a hard drtve that was dr;pd,i at our omce ny llf1q,?Hle-Tâsk fi
on12t15t2012. officer sH;!; r6ilrir'g[fbr*i*"
"tr cetl.pt:rone.s atthaitlme. one of the cell phones ls a' ll
l!:
The'
#.i.;d;;ffi ff
iJ'u-6;bd.19 rippeo at tfrrt tme uy ttre XirY cell phone forenslo equlpment and software.
II
f;
othei phone ls an LG - VXl1000 cell phone. End of report'r
t:
I
it
t:
il!
t',ir &
il:
rt
l:
t,
I
It
iIt
:
:i
::
I
I
CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 11-3 Filed 09/10/14 Page 16 of 51 -r
it
It
:t
-t
..:!
I
it
.rgBl"*,*qaF*q,!!9ll'ber "" Dgig;*.,- ;,%
..
f
lji
l0lt27t2o1s'l,l!f,f
,llrNoogooo "-. llt$000a47.-" ...l êleasetoPubllc
ffitfi drt"" t'"t *"r given to me to took at was a,western Dlsital 500. Ge. h3$ d.!rg tlll
tlg
-s,I' that was
,t
t
tq
),fif#,lihhok up the above hard drive to a wnte olocKerrt
wr'tte..blocker
WCAS87169279.Qn
lhe computer t$:{'9 1?l-f1*
I
hooked up to mY iii$looiq"t loot<eo lhrgrlph Ir
. I then shut tlie computer off and unhooked the hard
{}i:
br Schrage. t was later asked toimage the'hard
,f,
the proc6ss of lmaging, anothe-r hardr drive. and did
lit:
iias abain contacted bybfflcer Schrage that there
suspia in theii case. ihe hard drive was relumed to t.l
U
I
t.
f{
l::
F
a
:
fi
i:
ll;
!!!
ii
'f
,|:
:l
ia
t
!,. *
:t
i:
'l
:,
:l
]ll
I
{
,!
I
il
t
:l
"' - PagaTdT
'pilnted: 1212/20139:69:60A[
it
I
il
" EXHIBIT L
EI\{AIL FROM CLERK ADVISING TITERE IS NO CIIAIN OF EVIDENCE OR

OTHER DOCUMENTS RBGARDING PLAINTIFF'S HARD DRTVE.
l:*
::
'; :.q1
EXBIBIT M
(BCA)-
SAMPLE PHOTO OF BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION
EVIDEIICE STICKER(S) PLACED ON PLAINTIF!"S SEIZED PROPERIY'
:,r
i\
I
l{r
E)(HTFIT N
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISAVOWS ANY

INVOLVEMENT }VITH THE EGFPD OR PINE.TO.PRAIRIE,GA}{G AND DRUG
TASKFORCE RAID ON PLAINTIFF.
;qa
.sr
. HCIIBIT O
piSRVOIVS ANY
MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION
'' THE
INVOLVEMENT WITIT THE EGFPD OR PINF'TO-PRARIE GANGAND. DRUG
TASKFORCE RAID ON PLAINTIFF.
:" 1'
. E)GilBIT P
BEST BUY INC. EVALUATION OF HARD DRTVE. INOPERABLE. WILL COSTJ

$500-$2;000 To RECOVER IN FORENSIC LAB,
J:i:.i*
l*.,r -l*.{r
E)GIIBIT Q
EGF POLICE CHIEF MICHAEL IIEDLUND'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

COMPLAINT REGARDING FALSE STATEMENT IN POLICE REPORT BY
OFFICER AEISSO SCHRAGE.
t.
::
(I
.*
I
EXHIBIT R
:a
POLiCE CHIEF MICHAEL. HEDLUND'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

EGT'
t. REQUEST FOR CHAIN OF E\4DENCE AND RECORD OFEXAMINATION
DOCLIMENTS. .
:
i
'
j
r:
EXIIIBIT S
pLAINTIFF's FoRNIAL coMpLAINT To aITy oF EGF eivu anHnrNlsrniron

DAVID MURPHY' S FINDINGS.
City of East Grand Forks

Complaint Form
Desoribe your complaint (include time of day incident occurred and date of ocannence):
Eilnnt'
-{6n-l
C ontac't Phone Nurnber: 3l? )3o.t3to G.tt)
Datc of Complaint: Reported to:;
i t tl. :t * *,. rF + *..+ + + +'* **+****+ * * * rl *':f't * tt I * * rt * ti t * tt * + * + * * tF + tF !i *
Actioirr Taken: -..,..- " -*
:l
Verifcation ,!,:. ::=:: r::: :il:iii:+..E'i::='1ii#;5i:i ;*lC:ill*'ir#ii{ "ii**i "1--'

Follow-up:r. Datol,. ,-
Additionat Action:.=rr,==,* .+*;.m
I
*.****1.***t+*r*{.t***+, *:lt+***{r, *dt*'f**+***,******+***tli *d.*rt{(
RecordedB --'
{'*' All supporting documentalion attached-
5l / 1t]- Erî ) +s U5. D.gl-- .F C smr4cre(.
S/qlV Erni ) to FB}
Page 1 ofl
Timothy Charles Holrnseth

l'
From: Tlmothy Charles Holmseth ltholmseth@wildel.coml $
Sent Thursday, May 1, 2014.11:24 AM

To: 'Josoph A Lubln - NOAA Federal'
Ge 'knelson@egf.mn'
Subject Secufty / Verificatlon Form
Jos€ph;
You recenlly ran a security cloaranca checlt on me.

,,
I provided you the nams Kim Nelson to vurtfy my addrcss: She is an;employee of HUD. I spoke with her thls
momlng and she.sa'rl she rccelved the lefierfiom you wiile she.was out on medlcal leave. lt neverwas telumed
to you..
She will vefifywhatoveryou need;
I am copying heron thls email.: " n
Thank you,
Tlmothy Holrns€th
flmnltry7 Charles. Ilolmseth .

320 17th street N.W.
UnJ.t: # 1?'. I
East Grand'For!s;' MNi 56721,
218.773.L299 !
218'.230.1310 (cell)
''sltolzotq
Page I of4
From: TimothyGharle Holrtseth ltnohs€tt!@iliklel-comJ

Sent' Sunday, May 4,2O14 8:42.PM
To: 'minneapolB@efri.goV
Subiect Fraud / Embezlement
Special Agent
MinneapolisFBl:
May \2O14
Special Agen!
Please accept the frllowing informaion.
INTRODUCTION
I believe ! have information that mey be of use b you.
On April ggr2Q!4,WDilZand:the Grandforksgeratd brote a story that $5f0,000 was loaned to the
City of East Grand Forls @GF) in 1999 by Fcononio Dwelopmem andllousing Authodty (mHA)
but over a decade passed with no payment being madF. , ,Jrl
EDIIA Execulive Director Jim Richter brought the r.n-paid loan to the atention
The lloratd reported that
of EGF City Adninisfiator David Murphy. Richterwolld not speak to reportqs.
Thenews story also focrrsed on EGF Mayoqlynn Siauss, his brotheir Dan Sarsq and.EGF gity:
Attomey Ronald Galstad-
I believe I have information connegt€d to this ftau4,;
TIMOI T CEARI,EfI OIJTGIETE

I am a (former) award-winning news r€porter. I am now an investigativejoumalisUarnhor,
I an well kno*m toEGF City Anomey RoEaId Galstad. Ireported the City ofEGiF toU.S. Attorney B.
Todd lones and the Mnneapolis EBI in 2012: There exists etilreme animosrg betwe€n me and fre City'
9f EGiF, . ,n
FBf records will re0ect I was interviewedby Special Agent A.I: Eilerman in 2010 regarding jorrnalisic
iutenriews I conducted with key players in the kidnapping ofHalreigh Au-I\&rie Cummings, 5.
Records with the BGFPD and Polk eounty Atbmey's Office show that while tre FBI in Blorida was
following leads they received via my interviews, the EGFPD was being contacted by the 'zuspoctsl and
looking for somefringto chargemewith. \
Inz0lz Galshd colluded with the EGit?D to have me arrwted on a

publication. Public Defender Mchael Lacoursiere
cops (Sgt Ctuis Olso and Deputy lesse ltrargen)
Lacoursiere repeatedly reminded me the
sl30l20t4
Page2 of4.
ii
tn2112 Galstad ordered the EGtriPD to obtain a wanant to seize my-computer's bard drive and oiher
tq. iournalism equipment The EGFPD placed Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) stickers on the
i1 seized propgiy: Gatsbd then told Judge Tamara Yon in open court he uras worting wi$ the BCA to
travC a?orinsil search dono of my hari-drive. I contaripd theMiilnesota Deparmem of hrblic
.l
SafetylBCA. Assisbqt Superintendent Dfew Evans said ihey lnew absolutely nothing about the case
and were not iuvolvetl in *y or"y, Evars said they had never'been asked to searc;h my har&dtive. Sgt
Mchael Nodand investigator, Polk County Sheriffs Office (P{SO), admitted in open court that he'
searched my computer with a progam called Wlite Check but kopt to 'Record of Examination' or
'Chain otrgviAenie: doormeniatiJo, Tlrebarddrire's Administratorlogshouaitwas searched during a
time,windovtr when uo law edorcement uiill admitthey had possession of it fire hard-drive was:
retumed on April 26,2073,asd had beenrendered inoperable,
Evidence, facts, and circurnstaroes show Galsta4 City ofE€F, EGffD, and PCSO desperately wanted
to loowwhatwas iumy harddrive.
It is within the cont€nt of my eo<tremely adversuial relarionship with Ronald Galstad and the City of
EGF that I will aow dissrss the missilg $510$00 recontly reported,by the news:
$510,000UN-PATDEDEA'LOAN
i
EDIIA Executive Director Iarnes Richte& and/orhisr staff, becaie paranoid/nervous afrer Kim Nelsort
housing progran coordinaroq recendy recetvrd an eurrelopdl*terfr,om a federal iwegdgalive sgency.
': ,'
envelope/letbr was' sent to Kim Nelson at my: behest It was sent by the Office of Secruity^LSi-
lhe
Deparmeni of Commerce, I had provideil the Office of Security with lvls. Nelson's name because she is
me miO agBnt assigned to my rental assigtmcefila,The envelope coutaitred an address verification'
fomr.
I needed HtD to confirm my address as part of a federal sccurity chcck being perbrmed on me
regarding seorrity clearance required for me to work as ajanitor at theNaiional.Weather Service:
U,itaing:in Crani fodrs. fts sicurity check_was being pertlrnedby "Ioseph Lubin, U.S. Deparment of
Commerce/Oft ice of Se anrity.:
I have been working at the f€de,ral facility iu Crranil Forks, but aln presently required to heire a.
chaoerone to enter two specific rooms until I receive my clearance. I was becoming increasingly
frndtnted because my cliarance was lrot going rtru€F, aad it cle*e.s somewhat of a problem at times.
I stopped in the EDI{A office (rm-announced) in East Graqd Forks on lvlay 2,2014, and asked to speak
witU-fim Netson She came to the front desk, gr€eed me, and we went into a privaG room. ,
Webegan conversing.
IVf,s,N€lsonimmediatcly broughtup theaddressverificalionfcm shcieceivedregardingmc. Shetold

me she nev€r sent it in.. She toid me she had been out on medical leave for a slip and fall injury'
(damaged rotator cuff). The verificaion form was sent no l\ds. Nelsm atthc HUD orffice. Howevor, it
rizas my impression,ttd at some point she had fte verificdion form d hone (peltapeworking ftom,
home).,
Ms. Nelson told me her superior wsnted to see what was ir the elrvelope fiom tfte f€dsal investigative '
agency. Ms. Nelson commented that thcy almoit always opon her mait but did qot open this envelope.,
lvls. Nelson advised her boss it was an address vedficdior form for frmottry Holmserh. Shp said her
*you do NOT send AITIYEIING"-
superior told hm
sl30l20l4
'9r
Page3 of4
I asked Ms. Nelson why her supedor would object to something so innocuous. Ivfs. Nelsoa ttiq, ,
nevel'sent in ard she'
",.Becaussthey dotr't ft;kingtrust me." She told me the vetifiodion form was
believed she had "shredded if'-
It should be pointed outthat lhad recendy emaikdmllAExecutiveDirector,Jim nichter and
complimentedhis employee,Fq Nelson. Ee-nwcrrqilied anilMs. Nelsoaldertoldmethe'
comblimentwasnw€rpiacedinherpersonnel file'
"
On May 2, while sitting in the glassprivatO toom conv€rsingwith Ms. Nelson, l/Ir. Rchter exited his
ofi.J i1a *at a aborit slowly] lootlog into the:room where we were siting. Karan Luk4sz, housing
coordinator, also walked acrois the room and looked a|us several times
Ms. Nelson brouglrt up fre subjeet of the r:npaid $510,000 being repcted by the news- (
*on &e cover of the aewspaper yesterday'?. She told me it was not
Ms. Nelsdri told me lrfr. Richter was
thefirstrimehe"gotcaugfif,doingthatShesaid$5ff]p00hâtlnotbeenpaid-bq:Fty.foqfpT.y0 --
o-auooi t"m.mberihe busi-ness,nari'e she gave me but it conained the name 'Kraft' or 'Craft')- She said
two- other wouren in the office do thebooks; Ms: Nelson said he'always gets away with it"-
In an email excbange between Ms. Nelson and my-self the ryt{t {ay,-she said her boss had goten
^
;nervousl becausefie lsfr€r that contained the addrcss verification fotm rqarding me had come from a
'1U. S. Federal Investigatorls Qfficd.
T IMPRESSTONS
lriy iffiffi;;'[ ,bu, Mr. Nelson's boss ieceived an envelopo ftim a fed-cral invesrigative agercy. She
colde iort visrally see the form @ecause Ms. Nelson was ut home). She did not "tusf Ms. Nolson; and
therefore instruci-?d herto not seodiit but ratler' shred it.,
There is nolOgicalreasofcasup€rvisordEDEAto become*nenrolrs- b.cor" of .o envelqe from a

feOe6 invesdfttive,ageocy.Howerrer-in thisinsttnc€-the supervisorbecane solervous and,
p.r-"iiiy a-[oel" dvel6pethataclient's addressverification?ormwas dcsuoyedto allwiatsthe
supervisofs fears.
It would apirear that during the time'windov regardhg thP drama with tlie egyeloae fvfr. Richter, after a
deoade of silenccand nondetec'do4 4qring audit* abnrptlycon-hotedEcF City AdministratorDavid
hfinrphy about m rm-Paid loan.
Respecffi.rlly submitt€4 *
Timothy Charles llolmsoth
Clmothy' Charleg Holmseth

320 17th street N.w.
Unit # 1?
Eact, Grand Forks, MN 56721
NOTIC& Ihfr GEeil iaitrgidrnl orcuitytgvtonftcy qrf rddc$ed.

erlryfitercucoiEodsidi irarocodrleait ailidcorledsolctyforlhourcofiho
iildh*;;hr.dteLcoltao"og6ptooanodryrbsqrrcn@got Thirrocrrrgocorab.laftdedr:rlirfomrioalldlrislcn&doolyfclho
s130t2014'
Ciry of East,Grand Forks
Mr. Timothy Holmseth

g2o,,rr'n st. N.w. Unit 17
Eagt Grand Forks, MN 56721
June 12, 2014'
RE: May 30h Complaint Forrn Regarding Employment Verification Form
Dgar Mr. Holmseth: l
I am writing this lefter in response to yorir C6mplaint Form dated May'3Oh, 2O1:4 and
hand delivered to East Grand Forks City Hall,,
I have reviewed your complaint and have interviewed allwitnesses that still work for
the City. Afier my review I have concluded the following;
:
'r?
st;,
:::
o, City Employee Kim Nelson received a letter addressed specifically to her, not to the
'I City or EDHA from a FederalAgencY.
.' Ms. Nelson was out on leave during the time that thd letter arrived;
o Ms. Nelson picked up the letter when she came in to the offige to collect some
personal items and brought it to her residence,
,.- Ms, Nelson opened the lltter at her residence and phoned in to the EDHA Office to
inquire what she should do with it.
., Ms. Nelson told EDHA Director Jim Richterthat she had received an address*'
verification form regarding Timothy Holmseth and that contained Mr: Holmseth's'
address, but not his apartment number.
. Mr. Richter tob her that the policy was to shred documents that contain personal
information and,asked her if she had a shredder. She stated that she did and he told
her to shred"it. l
After review of this situation, I have determined that the document was shredded in
eror: lf you are still in need of address verification, please feelfree to have the requesting
entity to iontact me.. "''
Sincerelyr
David Murphy
City Administrator
.t"[e City of East Gtand Fgrks is an r\ffirnrative;;\&ion Equ,'rl Opi:ortrrniq." Ernplo,Vcr.

t!'
EXIIIBIT T
ADMINISTRATOR LOG OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPI.JTER PROVING IT \MAS

TURNED ON WHILE IN POLICE CUSTODY AT A TIME THE EGFPD CANNOT'
E)(PLAIN \ilHO HAD POSSESSION OF THE COMPUTER ORWHO ACTTVATED
IT A}ID/OR WIIY.
. a'.
.$
Timothy Charle,s Hohirseth

32Ol7'd StrestN.W.
Unit# 17
56721
'218.773.1299
278.23L.t310 (celD
In Re: Deprivation ofRights / Iot"ntto'Soe

I,
;" July2,2014
DavidMutphy
Adrninistrator
Cily of East Grand Forts :
Dear Admini stratu Murphy,; ;:.
This L€tter of trntent shatl senve ss yourformal notice oftheurriter's intentto,conmenbe'

legal ppoeedings against the City ofEa$ CrrandFodrs in pspectto the violation of my
rights b'etween 2O09 and 2O14.
In the event you wish to resdve and settle this matter prior to lryI proceedings being
commenced ageinst,yorr pleaso contact mc at the above address wiJhitr fourteen (14).
days.
Failure bythewritertd,receive awrittenreply &om youwirhinthetime Aameindicated

above, with yourintention of resolving,this matter, thewriterwill talce any and all actions.,
necessary forthe commencement of l€al proceedinp in the corE of applicable
jurisdiction and will be seeldng costs against you in respect of the sasre.:
Respecfully,
f imbfry C tiartes Hotm seth
01 totl Itt
bhn''e/
;.:*tii:w.e+*
December 10.2013
Bureau of Crirninal Apprehension

says it played noi role in Polk Counfy
raid on journalist
BCA evidence containers used to label evidence - State,
Prosecutor implied relationship with BCA
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
:;
When the East Grand Fbrks Police Department (EGFPD) erilered the home-office ofa
loeal journalist with a Search Warrant to seize his hard-drive and equipment'' they put
'evidence' in storage containers that came from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
(BCA).
On January 4,2l13East Grand Forks CityAttorney Ronald Galstad, told Diskict Judge
{lamara Yon th-e,'Bureau of Criminal Apprehension' would not perform a forepsic search
'on
Timoth! Holmseth's hard-ilrive without another warriint - as$uring the Jirdge he' ,
woul{ be making areque-qt forthe warrant.
-
Attorney Galstad proactively mentioned the BCA in more than one court hearing.
Indeed - between BCA evidence containers, and Galsta<l's name dropping of the age,ncy,
,the BCA presen& was strong in.the State of Minnesota vs. TirnothyHolmseth.
But tiie;e is aprobleqgi
According to the BCA - tfeir agency played no role in,the case whatsoever. "The BCA
had no role in the investigation you describe and did not attach any tags to evidence in
that case,'.' said Jill Oliveira, public information officer;Iv{innesotaDepartment of Public.
Safety;
Emerging factg app,ear to reveal wfrat is an unlaveling hoax.
According io a repot filed by Sgt. Michael Nbfland, special investigations, Polk County
Sherif?s Office (PCSO), he was given Holmseth's hard,drive and two cell phones on
December 15,201.2."[Holmseth's hard-drive and cell phones were] dropped off at our
office by Officer Aeisso Schrage with the ?ine-to-Prairie Task Force," Ngrland said.
The use of a dnrg and violent crime task force to seize the journalism equipment of
HoLuseth, an award-winning newspaper teporter, creates many questions.
ls, {.
The Pine-to-Prairie Drug Task Force is a multi'jurisdictional program ftrnded bythe State
of Minnesota; U.S. Department of Justice, and Bureau of Justice Assistance:that brings'
resources against major crimilal operations involving drug hafficking and violent orirne.
"Ther9 are no BCA personnel serving,on that task fo"rce," Oliveirasaid.
The un-authorized use of BCA stickers during the execution of the search wayrant, and
the'rrse of drug and gang task tblce resources to obtain the warrant in the tirst placg has:
. ireated serious qi:estions abort! ldW enforcement's obsession wi0r the content of:
Holmseth's hard-drive.
Sgt. Norland reports that on April 3, 2013 he.searched l{olmsethts hqrd.drive but tbuird:
no sign of illegal activity.
But agafur; thc,re's a probleqr.
The Polk County Investigator hacl no warrant to search the hard-dri.ve.
The warrant-less search could,also be describecl as a 'secreti search, because'Investigator:

Norland'used a special prcgram called Write Blocker that does not register any changes
on the bard-d{ive,or operating system.
Holmseth did not leam'aborit the search of his hard-drive until September 30. 2013 after
he pushed ths issue with EGF Police Glrief Michael Hedlund during the grievance
proggssj
Hohnsethhad a good reilson tb1 filing a grievance.
When the hard.drive wari given back to Holmseth on April 26;,2073 it was inoperable.
Wires had lieen pulled out inside the computer tower: Specialists at Best Briy, Inc;
atternpted to boot the hard-drive wilhrno success.
Norland,reports that he gave the'hard-clrive back to Otficer Schrage, in firlt working

order, after finding no sign of illegal acdvity. He states that on April22,2013 Officer
Schrage returned the hard-drive to him and asl<erJ him to make'a copy of it.
(
Serious questions exist about Schrage's desire to have a copy of a hard-drive that
contai-necl nq sigr qf illegal acti:rty.
-t'
,Another oddity of the case is the behavioi of Chief Fledlund. Ori Nbvember lP,2013
Holmseth requested all docurnents pertaining to the:chain of custocly of his property
while it was in the possession of the EGFI'D. Hedl'und refusbs to provide Holrnseth the
information
Is it possible Timothy Holmseth was illegally targeted? Is it'possible there was a plan to
framehim?
Yes.
In 2012, Holmseth zubmitter;l a detailed AIfidavit of a.plot that been clescribetl to him by
MirmesotaPublic Det'ender Michael LaCoursiere. According to theAffidavit, Holmseth
was told if he insisted on a jury hial, and would not accept anAlford plea, "Galstad" and
the "copsr were goi4!5 to eventually p.ut him in "St. Cloud'1.
HoLnseth aierted authorities that Attorney LaCoursiere advised hirn ihat if he ilrsisted on
,, a jury trial, Galstad was going to call EGFPD Sgt. Chris Olion and PCSO DepuU Jesse
Haugen to lie on th.e witness stand to obtain a conviotion ;
Holmsetli's complaintlvas forwarded by District Judge Tamara Yon to the Minnesota

Lawyer's Professional Responsibility Eoard;
ln}}l?.,Hotmssth,also submitteii a.detaited report to United States Attorn.ey B. Todil

Jones detailing a web of corruption he discovered operating in East Grand Eorks, Polk
County, MinnisotaPublic Defencler's OffiOe, and theMinnesota Guardian Ad Litem' ..
program.
" ,
Hofinseth has been harassed and terrorized for over four years after conducting recorded
interviews with rnemberi of a'human bafficking apparatus. He was.told who kidnapped,
Haleiglr Airn-Marie Cirmmings and an elaborate baby-broke-ring operation was
explained to him in detail.
h 201 l, Holmseth was telephoned and told he would be murdeted by 'tnob boys" in uj
Flbrida if he attended a court hearing to tlefend hims"dlf against an action tdken against
him by a.str"anger. Hb reported the threat to Lt. Rodney Hajicek, EGFPD. Hajicek took no
action whatsoever.'
Holmseth made aData Privacy Act request forpolice incident rqtorts to send to the
FloridaJudge The EGFPp you.ld not provide Holmseth thb reports'9ntil the cour"t
lrearing was over.
The Florida action, *u, ih.n servecl upon Holmt.ttt Uy the PCSO, an<l then became the
'ultimate basis for the EGFPD to falsely arrest Holmseth.
This is a developing story.

)
For related stories click here
ThiS StOry hrp'//writehtoaction.com/BCA7o20 playdo/o20wo/o20rote7o20in7o20raid,htnrlr

Timothv CharlesHolmseth I
3zo 77'fr StiietN.w

lJnrt# 17
56721
2t8.773.1299
218.230.1310 (cell)
tholm setli@wi ictel. Com
www.writeintoaction.com ;
December 8,2013
, Celeste Grant
Deputy State Auditor
525 Park Street
Suite 500
St. Paul, MN
' 55103
Deputy Grant,
I havean issue I would like to address with your agency. Before doing so, I believe it
would be prudent to share my background
TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH
I anlan investigative journalist/author residing in East GrandForks, Minnesota. .
My professional references include statements from people of good repute suctras elected
officials, community leaders, and a County Attorney
I have been recognized with firstplace awards by theNorth DakotaNewspaper

Association, as well as Boone Publishing. h 2009 Ipassed a state and federal
background checkin ddvaace of a socialworkeipositio4 whichfequii€d I stibinit
documents to the Deparhrent of Homeland Security, DeparEnent of Statg INS, and FBI.
I was interviewed by the Minneapolis FBI in 2010 about a journalism project I

diideavrifed regarding the kidn4ping ofHaleigh Ann-Marie Cummings- TheFBI
requested I turn over copies ofjorinalistic interviews f conducted with certain individuals
of interest to the FBI in that that case. The Special Agent that interviewed me told me I
was deemed ci'edible.
EAST GRAI{D FORI(S POLICE DEPARTMENT
I am contacting you today in regards to the East Crrmd Forks Police Deparhent
(EGFPD).
. OnNovember 27,2012 the Ofiice ofthe State Auditor'advised thel\finnesota

Deprtiliri€irt of Public Safety, as well as the Oversight Committee for the Pirieto-Piaiiie
Drug Task Force, that iszues needed to be addressed with the EGFPD regarding the
EGFPD's failure to report monies, received at auction for the sales of seized motor
Vehiclds.
:
I have reason to believe the inegularities discovered by the auditor were only the tip of
the EGFPD cornrption iceberg. Ihave information and evidence that shiiws the EGFPD
- .habitually refuses public records requests; hides records; destroys records; alters
documents; intimidatewitnesses; ignores crime; and falsely arrests dissidents.
My first experience with the EGFPD was in 20O9 when the ranking officer at the
Departmen! Lt. Rodney Hajicek, telephoned me on behalf of a company from Florida
called Xentel, Inc. IIe advised me the Company did not wmt me to publish tlie story I
was working on rggarding aPhotoshopped picture of the missing child Haleigh
Cummings, which was beingused to advance an online charity fraud
. At the time the EGFPD was preszuring me at the reqnest ofXentel, Inc.; the FBI in
Florida was physically visiting Xentel based upon a lead they received from me.
Xentel, Inc. is a company that has been sued by the Ofiice of the Attorney General in
Iowa, doloradq Ohiq Missoud, Pennsylvaniq and South Carolina for defrauding the
citizeniy. It is very disturbing the EGFPD was doing a favor forXentel, Inc. - a compaiiy
; that may be involvedin a federal kidnapping-
. The amount of evidence I acquired between 2009 and 2013 regarding cornrption by the
EGFPD and EGF City Attorney is absolutely astonishin!, :nd fai beyorid tlie scope of
, this colrespondence.
Suffice to say - the City of East GrandForks knew4<nows what Ihad on them, because I :
ieported their orgpnized aiminal activity to the FBI in arly 2O12. I reported it to the feds '
. because itis multi-jwisdictional, serious, dangerous, and organized-
On December 14, 2Ol2theEGFPD obtained a Search Warrant from aDistrict Judge to

Seize my comput€r, telephoneq credit card irirmbgrs, U.S.Mail, feCofdeis, dises, flash
drives, etc.
On January 4,2O13EGF City Attomey Ronald Galstad told Judgc Tamara Yon in open
cbrirt tbdt the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) wotrld not forensically search my
hard-drive without a proper Warrant.
The Court subsequently ordei the property be rearned. It was returnedto me on April
' 26,20L3. HOweVer - wires had beenpulled oUt from inside the compUtef's t<iwef and thd
hard-drive no longer worked
I ntg.uttogance of this gangstertactic by the EGFPD is amazing'

, ,
Ibegan to file complaints toEGF Police Clieflwchaellledtrmd regarding the

destruction of my as wel! as otherinfractions. .:
lomPuter,
I learned on September 30, 2Ol3 vtaa letter from Chief Hedlun4 that law enforcement
had searched my hard-drive. That was the first time I had proofthey had been inside of it.
That would have been a warrant-less search, because the initial Warrantonly allowed the
EGFPD to retain the properfy and hold it- i
:,
That is very disturbing because Attorney Galsrid had 3Jreadf told Judge Yon that the
BCA woirld not seirch the hard-drive without another Waftmt.
)
Sheriffs Office (PCSO), telified in Court on

Sgt. Mchael Norland, Polk County
November Z5,2Ol3 during aMotion to Compel hearing filed by me, that he searched my
hard-drive at the request of Offi cer Aeisso Scftrage-
: Schrage was an officer at theEGFPD. : :
However - records generated by Sgt. Norland, which I recently obtailed lrom the PCSO,
show Sgt. Norlahd ieferred to Schrage as being with the "Pine-to-Prairie Drug Task
Fritc6" (ag opposed to th: EGEPD - not mentioned by Norlamo-
. ...:
The suggestion that I am connected to gang *d"iti' or drug dealing is completely *a -

uttedy;:diculoiis. It appears the EGFPD may have used their Pine-to-Piairie Drug Tdsk
Force agent to requestthe Search \lVarrant from the Judge to add credibility to the
request.
Sgt. Norland stated in his report that he found nothing illegal on the harddrive. He also '
said that after he gave the harddrive back to Schrage; Schrage later returned with
it and
want€d to make a"coPf ofit.
lrim
Another oddity of the situation is the fact that some of the items that had been seized on
Decembei 14,2}12,were retgned to me on April 26,2013 withBCA evidence stickers :
on them. However - there is no indication at tlis point ttr* theBCA was ever even
involved in this Wailant. Two different types of evidence stickers were used.
,_f
During the Novembter 25,2013 hearing I tied several times to question Sgt. Norland oq
the witness stand regarding his search ofthe hard-drive (lwanted to_knowif he believed
h6 had e Warrartt to s*t"h th" h"tddtirne)- However - every time I bqgao that line of .
questioning, Attorney Galstad would object on the basis it was beyond the scope of my
Motion.
The EGFpD seems to move seamlessly from one lie to another - oqe act of cornrption to
another.
h my experience, this typeof activity is almost always indicative of something much

bigger that is hidden very deep below the surface-
CONCLUSION
I have been very diligent in fiIing written complaints to the EGFPD so f have a wealth of
. documentation.
The before-mentioned i#ormation I shared with you is only a v€ry, very small sample. I
could show you much more regarding things such as evidencetampering and document
manipulation. -\I
believe your auditor would find a great deal more if he dug deeper.
.I
I am copyrng the BCA on this letterbemrse I recendy commrmicated with a special

agent regarding the BCA stickers that appeared on some of my property.
'. Pl"ure feel free to contact me at any time.
Respectfully,
Timothy Charles Holm seth
Cc: Donald Cheung, Greg Hierlinger
\,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Timothy Charles Holmseth, 14-cv-2970 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,
vs. DEFENDANT BARD ERDMAN AND

MICHAEL NORLANDS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
City of East Grand Forks,

Ronald Galstad, Barb Erdman,
James Richeter Michael Hedlund,
David Murphy, Rodney Hajicek,
Aeisso Schrage, Michael Lacoursiere,
John Doe, Jeanette Ringuette,
and Michael Norland,
Defendants.
Defendants Barb Erdman and Michael Norland move the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. This motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and is based upon the
files, records, memorandum of law and proceedings submitted in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

CARLSON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Dated: September 18, 2014 By /s/ Nigel H. Mendez

Nigel H. Mendez - Atty. Reg. No. 0347917
Thomas P. Carlson - Atty. Reg. No 024871X
1052 Centerville Circle

Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 287-8640
Fax : (651) 287-8659
nmendez@carlsonassoc.com
tcarlson @carlsonassoc. com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

BARB ERDMAN AND MICHAEL
NORLAND
2

Timothy Charles Holmseth, 14-cv-2970 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,
vs. DEFENDANT ERDMAN AND NORLANDS’

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
City of East Grand Forks,

Ronald Galstad, Barb Erdman,
James Richeter Michael Hedlund,
David Murphy, Rodney Hajicek,
Aeisso Schrage, Michael Lacoursiere,
John Doe, Jeanette Ringuette,
and Michael Norland,
Defendants.
Defendants Barb Erdman and Michael Norland submit this Memorandum in
Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Erdman is the Polk
County Sheriff and Norland is a Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy. Erdman and Norland are
collectively referred to herein as the “County Defendants.”
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint1 is a verbose tale of twisted allegations without
any factual support or common theme. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim
1
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 10, 2014, but failed to serve the
County Defendants. The original Complaint failed to name Norland as a defendant, and
Norland has not been served as of this time. However, Norland, for the purpose of this
motion, is waiving service.
against either Erdman or Norland for any alleged injuries. The Amended Complaint
details an extensive history between Plaintiff and numerous individuals, many of whom
are not parties to this action. The details of the Amended Complaint fail to support any
viable legal claims. As such, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety
for failing to state a claim, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6). Further, even if
Plaintiff has satisfied the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading requirements, the County Defendants are
immune from Plaintiff’s claims.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
RELEVANT TO THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS
On December 13, 2012, a search warrant was issued by Polk County District
Court Judge Jeff Remick. Am. Compl at Ex. J. This warrant provided East Grand Forks
(“EGF”) Police the officers with the authority to search Plaintiff’s home for “[b]ooks,
ledgers, journals, notes and/or other records which pertain to the violation of the
Amended Order2 … including those contained on a computer hard-drive, a storage disc,
or other electronic media.” Id. Officers from the EFG Police Department executed the
warrant on December 14, 2012. Am. Compl. at ¶ 84.
On March 29, 2013, the Polk County Sheriff’s Office was contacted by an officer
of the EGF Police Department and asked to assist in the forensic examination of digital
evidence. Am. Compl. at Ex. K. On April 4, 2013, Norland examined a hard-drive that
was provided to him by the EGF Police Department and did not find any signs of illegal
activity. Id. Norland returned the hard-drive to the EGF Police Department. Id. On April
2
Plaintiff was the subject of a 2011 harassment restraining order issued in Florida.
2
22, 2013, the hard-drive was again provided to Norland by the EGF Police Department
along with a request that he image the hard-drive. Id. Norland was unable to perform the
imaging prior to April 26, 2013, when Norland was informed that all property was
ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff. Id.
On January 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Norland with Erdman. Am.
Complaint at ¶ 91. Erdman advised Plaintiff that the actions of Norland were not illegal.
Id. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this lawsuit.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court
assumes the facts in the complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from
those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Morton v. Becker, 793
F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). However, the Court need not accept as true wholly
conclusory allegations, or legal conclusions drawn from the facts pled. Czech v. Wall
Street on Demand, Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1105 (D. Minn. 2009).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a pleading must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545
(2007). While pro se complaints are often held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys, a “pro se complaint must allege facts, and not just bare,
unsupported, legal conclusions.” Martin v. Benson, 827 F.Supp. 2d 1022, 1025 (D. Minn.
2011). Even a pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions.
Martin v. Sargent, 780 F. 2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint provide a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The plaintiff must
plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint
must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. The defendant must be given fair notice of what the claim is, and the ground
upon which it rests. Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements,” will not pass muster under Twombly. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In sum, this
standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN

BE GRANTED.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff vaguely asserts that Erdman and Norland
violated his civil rights and caused emotional distress. The Amended Complaint alleges
that unknown actions believed to have been taken by Defendants Erdman and Norland
were the cause of harm that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is thirty-nine pages long and only includes the following references to the
County Defendants in the facts section:
86. Nearly a year later, on 11/27/13, Plaintiff submitted a

request for records to the Polk County Sheriff’s Office. On
12/04/12, the Sheriff’s Office provided Plaintiff a Sherriff’s
Incident Report dated 03/29/13. SEE EXHIBIT K. On
4
03/29/13, Sgt. Investigator Michael Norland said, “On

03/29/2013 I was contacted by Lt. Rodney Hajicek with the
East Grand Forks Police Department in reference to a hard-
drive that was dropped off at our office by Officer Aeisso
Schrage with the Pine-to-Prairie Task Force on 12/15/2012”.
The Clerk advises” There are no documents, outside of the
attached report, generated from Sgt. Norland’s search of your
hard drive or documenting a chain of evidence”. SEE
EXHIBIT L.
87. Sgt. Norland’s bizarre entry did not begin a paper trail
regarding Plaintiff’s hard-drive until 03/29/13, and also
introduced a new term regarding a ‘task force’ - - - “Office
Aeisso Schrage with the Pine-to-Prairie Task Force”.
91. On 01/03/14 Plaintiff filed a complaint to Polk County

Sheriff Barb Erdman against Sgt. Michael Norland. On
01/31/14 Erdman advised Plaintiff she did not believed
Norland’s search of the hard-drive was illegal.
Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 86,87,91. In the Second Claim for Relief, Plaintiff provides some
additional references to the County Defendants:
1) Between 12/14/12 and 03/29/13 there is no police record

that provides any indication whatsoever of the whereabouts
of Plaintiff’s seized property. On 03/29/13 Sgt. Michael
drafted a very suspicious Sheriff’s Incident Report that
mentions the property. However, Norland never actually
acknowledges physical sight or possession of the hard-
drive until 04/02/13. Police Chief Michael Hedlund admits
in writing that his Police Department kept to ‘Chain of
Evidence’ to establish the location or custody of Plaintiff’s
property and computer hard-drive. Hedlund further states
the Polk County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) kept no records,
either. The Sheriff’s Office clerk further advises that no
‘Chain of Evidence’ or any other documentation was kept
regarding the hard drive and property.
2) Sgt. Michael Norland states he searched Plaintiff’s hard-

drive. However he has no ‘Chain of Evidence’ or ‘Record
of Examination’ to demonstrate where the hard-drive was
before 04/02/13; what he was looking at; and/or what he
5
was ‘searching’ for. Norland had no legal warrant or

authorization of any kind to scour Plaintiff’s hard-drive and
personal files. Ronald Galstad’s statement to Honorable
Yon in open court on January 4, 2013, regarding the BCA
needing a separate warrant to forensically examine
Plaintiff’s hard-drive, proves the Warrant used to SEIZE
and RETAIN Plaintiff’s property did NOT contain any
legal authorization to perform a carte blanche search of
Plaintiff’s hard-drive.
3) The administrator’s log of Plaintiff’s computer revealed the

computer had been activated on 12/28/12 while in police
custody. SEE EXHIBIT T Neither the EGFPD nor the
PCSO can provide any explanation for who activated the
computer or what they did with it. Police Chief Michael
Hedlund cannot produce a ‘Record of Examination’ to
explain who searched the computer and/or made changes to
it. The computer was activated on 12/28/12 by Defendant
John Doe. The careful language used by Norland in his
Sheriff’s Report shows the agencies being run by Michael
Hedlund and Barb Erdman are both trying to avoid
admitting possession of the hard-drive on 12/28/12.
5) Ronald Galstad, the prosecutor for the State of Minnesota

told Judge Yon in open Court that the BCA needed another
warrant to search the hard-drive. Yet – when confronted,
Barb Erdman professed to believe her deputy had legal
authority and right to search the hard-drive. Barb Erdman
violated Plaintiff’s rights.
Am. Compl. at ¶ 157, sub. 1-3, 5 (emphasis in original).
It is impossible for the County Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint.
The lack of detail with respect to the County Defendants and sheer verbosity of the
Amended Complaint as a whole, make it impossible to ascertain exactly what the
Plaintiff is alleging that the County Defendants did that violated his rights. While
Plaintiff may feel that some injustice has occurred, no viable legal claim is actually pled
in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to plead his case in a manner which gives
6
the Defendants fair notice of what is being asserted, and the grounds upon which the
claims rest. As such, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
II. ERDMAN AND NORLAND ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED

IMMUNITY FROM PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.
Even if the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated an actionable claim,
Defendants Erdman and Norland are entitled to immunity. The Supreme Court has
determined an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). Qualified immunity is a
question of law to be decided by the district court and it is “immunity from suit rather
than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227-228 (1991). Thus,
“[q]ualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of
litigation.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
U.S. 511 (1985)). Similar to an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is
erroneously permitted to go to trial. Id.
The qualified immunity analysis requires a three-pronged inquiry. First, the
plaintiff must establish a violation of a constitutional right. Id. If a constitutional right is
not asserted, the matter must be dismissed. See Cross v. City of Des Moines, 965 F.2d
629, 632 (8th Cir. 1992). Second, the constitutional right in question must be “clearly
established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Finally, the
court evaluates “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the
7
facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or
motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); Saucier, 533 U.S. at 210.
A. No Violation of a Constitutional Right.
Plaintiff states in his Amended Complaint that Erdman violated his rights because
she “professed to believe her deputy had the legal authority and right to search the hard-
drive.” Am. Complaint at ¶ 157 (e)(5). This is Plaintiff’s entire claim against Erdman.
Erdman had absolutely no involvement in the search. As no other constitutional violation
is asserted against her, Plaintiff’s claim fails this vital prong of the analysis and Erdman
is entitled to qualified immunity.
The alleged constitutional violations against Norland are equally weak. Plaintiff
asserts, correctly, that Norland searched Plaintiff’s hard-drive, but then Plaintiff jumps to
the false conclusion that Norland “had no legal warrant or authorization of any kind” to
perform the search. Id. at ¶ 157(e)(2). The Constitution protects individuals from
unreasonable searches. U.S. Const. amend. IV. However, in this matter, a warrant was
issued specifically covering the hard-drive that was searched. There was no unreasonable
search performed, and thus no constitutional violation. Therefore, as Norland did not
violate any constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
B. No Clearly Established Constitutional Right.
Even if Plaintiff had alleged the violation of a constitutional right, the right must
be clearly established at the time of the violation. “This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be
undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”
8
Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. As the Supreme Court determined in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S.
730, 739 (2002):
[Q]ualified immunity operates “to ensure that before they are subjected to
suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.” Saucier v. Katz, [533
U.S. at 206]. For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours
“must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that
what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action
is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has
previously been held unlawful, see Mitchell [v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 535
(1985)]; but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness
must be apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, [483 U.S. 635, 640] (1987).
(emphasis added). It is well established that an officer is entitled to rely on a warrant that
the officer reasonably believes to be valid. United States v. Humphrey, 140 F.3d 762, 765
(8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984).
It is undisputed that a warrant for the search and seizure of items in Plaintiff’s
house was issued by a district court judge. See Am. Complaint Ex. J. The warrant was
properly signed, indicated that property that could be taken from the Plaintiff’s home, and
stated that hard-drives may be searched. Id. Therefore, it was reasonable for Norland to
rely on the warrant. Accordingly, Norland is entitled to the protection of qualified
immunity.
C. Norland’s Actions Were Objectively Reasonable.
Even if Plaintiff could successfully establish that Norland violated a “clearly
established right,” the Court must evaluate “whether the officer[’s] actions were
‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting [him], without
regard for the underlying intent or motivation.” Guite v. Wright, 147 F.3d 747, 750 (8th
9
Cir. 1998) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)). In Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 343 (1986), the Supreme Court explained:
[Police officers] will not be immune if, on an objective basis, it is obvious

that no reasonably competent officer would have [acted similarly] . . . but if
officers of reasonable competence can disagree on this issue, immunity
should be recognized.
Norland was presented with a hard-drive from a fellow law enforcement officer
along with a valid search warrant. It was objectively reasonable for Norland to perform
the search of the hard-drive. There is no evidence that Norland acted in any way that
would be outside the bounds of a reasonable officer. Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are
barred by qualified immunity.
III. PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH A VIABLE CONSTITUTIONAL

CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF POLK.
In the caption of his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff purports to be suing Erdman
and Norland both in their individual and official capacity. A suit against a public official
in his or her official capacity is actually a suit against the entity for which the official is
an agent. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). While it is enough in a
personal liability claim to show that the official caused the deprivation of a federal right,
more is required in an official-capacity action. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 176 (1961).
A governmental entity is liable under §1983 only when the entity itself is a “moving
force” behind the deprivation. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981)(quoting
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). In an
official-capacity suit, the entity’s “policy or custom” must have played a part in the
violation of federal law. Monell at 694. Importantly, if the individual employee’s actions
10
do not violate an individual’s constitutional rights, the claims against the municipality
based upon the employee’s actions must be dismissed. Walker v. Bonenberger, 438 F.3d
884, 890 (8th Cir. 2006).
“A municipality may be held liable under Section 1983 only if a municipal custom
or policy caused the deprivation of the right protected by the constitution or federal law,”
Angarita v. St. Louis County, 981 F.2d 1537, 1547 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Monell 436
U.S. at 690-691), or the “municipal policy or custom was the ‘moving force [behind] the
constitutional violation.’” Mettler v.Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir. 1999)
(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). For there to be § 1983 liability, “there must first be a
violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d
773, 777 (8th Cir. 2001). A municipality may only be held liable for the unconstitutional
acts of its officials or employees when those acts implement or execute an
unconstitutional municipal policy or custom. Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1204. At the very least,
there must be an affirmative link between the policy and the particular constitutional
violation alleged. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985).
While Plaintiff never asserts anything directly against Polk County, Plaintiff does
general assert that the named Defendants were acting “pursuant to a municipal/county
custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or practice in
their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.” Am. Compl.¶ 167. However, Plaintiff never
identifies the policy or custom. This baseless statement of the legal standard does not
create a Monell claim where one otherwise does not exist. For these reasons, Plaintiff
11
cannot establish a Monell claim and his civil rights claims against the County must be
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff fails to allege facts that support any actionable claim. Therefore, for the
reasons stated above, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Alternatively, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Erdman and Norland are barred by
qualified immunity.
CARLSON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Dated: September 18, 2014 By /s/ Nigel H. Mendez

Nigel H. Mendez - Atty. Reg. No. 0347917
Thomas P. Carlson - Atty. Reg. No 024871X
1052 Centerville Circle

Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 287-8640
Fax : (651) 287-8659
nmendez@carlsonassoc.com
tcarlson @carlsonassoc. com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

BARB ERDMAN AND MICHAEL
NORLAND
12

TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH, Civil No. 14-cv-2970 DWF/LIB
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS, a

municipal entity in the state of Minnesota;
RONALD GALSTAD, city attorney for
City of East Grand Forks, in his official
and individual capacity; BARB ERDMAN,
Sheriff of Polk County, Minnesota, in her
official and individual capacity; JAMES
RICHTER, director of Economic
Development and Housing Authority
(retired), in his official and individual
capacity; MICHAEL HEDLUND, Chief of
Police for City of East Grand Forks, in his
official and individual capacity; DAVID
MURPHY, administrator for the City of
individual capacity; RODNEY HAJICEK,
lieutenant detective at East Grand Forks
Police Department, in his official and
individual capacity; AEISSO SCHRAGE,
police officer at East Grand Forks Police
Department, in his official and individual
capacity; MICHAEL LACOURSIERE,
public defender for MINNESOTA
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, in his
official and individual capacity; JOHN
DOE, in his/her official and individual
capacity; JEANETTE RINGUETTE,
administrative assistant at the Grand Forks
National Weather Service Office, in her
official and individual capacity;
Defendants.
CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

AND/OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF AN ANSWER
________________________________________________________________________
TO: Plaintiff above named, Timothy Charles Holmseth, 320 17th Street NW, Unit 17,
East Grand Forks, MN 56721:
Defendants hereby move for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which this Court can
grant relief and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Alternatively,
Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure as there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IVERSON REUVERS CONDON
Dated: September 12, 2014 By s/ Nathan Midolo

Jon K. Iverson, #146389
Nathan C. Midolo, #0392373
9321 Ensign Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55438
(952) 548-7200
Fax: (952) 548-7210
nathan@irc-law.com
Attorney for Defendants City of East

Grand Forks, Chief Michael Hedlund,
David Murphy, James Richter, Rodney
Hajicek, and Aeisso Schrage

Plaintiff,
vs.

Defendants.
CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF DISMISSAL AND/OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
East Grand Forks employees have been familiar with Plaintiff Timothy Holmseth
since 2008. East Grand Forks police officers have responded to numerous harassment
calls against Plaintiff, arrested Plaintiff for blatantly violating an out-of-state harassment
restraining order, and conducted a search of his residence pursuant to a lawful search
warrant. They have also investigated complaints Plaintiff made concerning his own well-
being. Likewise, employees with the East Grand Forks Economic Development Housing
Authority have interacted with Plaintiff in assisting him with housing and employment
needs. Plaintiff now claims East Grand Forks employees conspired to violate his
constitutional rights during their years of interaction.
Specifically, Plaintiff commenced this action against the City of East Grand Forks
and numerous City employees, including Police Chief Michael Hedlund, Officer Rodney
Hajicek, Officer Aeisso Schrage, City Administrator David Murphy, and EDHA Director
James Richter (“East Grand Forks Defendants”).1 In his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to
allege numerous §1983 constitutional claims, including equal protection, free speech, due
process, malicious prosecution, unreasonable search, and Second Amendment right to
bear arms violations. After filing his original Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Amended
1
Plaintiff has also brought suit against individuals not employed by the City of East
Grand Forks, including Attorney Ronald Galstad, Polk County Sheriff Barb Erdman,
Public Defender Michael LaCoursiere, Jeanette Ringuette, and John Doe.
2
Complaint alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO). Both of Plaintiff’s Complaints are incoherent and fail to lay out proper
constitutional allegations. The East Grand Forks Defendants seek a dismissal with
prejudice of Plaintiff’s frivolous case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56.
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Plaintiff’s suit stems from ongoing interactions with various government
employees since 2008. According to Plaintiff, in 2008 he moved to East Grand Forks
from Breckenridge, Minnesota to be closer to his family. Complaint, ¶ 20. Plaintiff had
worked as a journalist in the past and developed a freelance writing business upon
moving to East Grand Forks. Id., ¶ 21. He also operated an internet blog as part of his
journalism endeavors. Id.
Florida Harassment Restraining Order
In an attempt to facilitate the growth of his blog as an investigative journalism
website, in 2009 Plaintiff began contacting individuals involved with the Caylee Anthony
and HaLeigh Cummings missing child cases in Florida. Id., ¶¶ 22-24. Plaintiff
eventually contacted an attorney in Florida named K.P.2 Id., ¶ 23. K.P. was the attorney
representing Crystal Sheffield, the mother of HaLeigh Cummings. Id., ¶ 28. Plaintiff
claims he had an arrangement with K.P. to receive tips about the case and in return he
would provide media exposure. Id., ¶ 28.
2
Although K.P. is identified by Plaintiff in his Complaint and Amended Complaint, these
Defendants choose to use her initials in this file.
3
On June 2, 2009 the East Grand Forks Police Department (“EGF PD”) was
contacted by K.P. Complaint, Exhibit B (Officer Hajicek’s police reports). K.P.
informed Officer Hajicek Plaintiff had been sending her disturbing e-mails and she asked
EGF PD to contact Plaintiff and inform him she wanted nothing to do with him. Id.
Officer Hajicek contacted Plaintiff and informed him of the complaint. Complaint, ¶ 31.
By July 20, 2009 Officer Hajicek had received complaints from other individuals
contacted by Plaintiff regarding the Florida case. Complaint, Exhibit B. At the same
time, Officer Hajicek received a child protection report regarding HaLeigh Cummings
from Rhonda Callahan, who has a child with Plaintiff, indicating Plaintiff has an
obsession with the missing girl in Florida. Id. The complaints regarding Plaintiff’s
harassment of K.P. and his obsession with HaLeigh Cummings continued to occur from
2009 until 2011.3 Complaint, ¶¶ 35-43. Whenever a report was received EGF PD
followed proper procedure and forwarded the information to the County Attorney’s
Office for review. Complaint, ¶ 40. In January of 2011 Plaintiff released a book titled
“In Re: HaLeigh Cummings (the shocking truth revealed).” Complaint, ¶ 46.
In September 2011 K.P. obtained a harassment restraining order against Plaintiff
from a state court in Broward County, Florida based on his continued harassment.
Complaint, ¶ 48; Complaint, Exhibit G. Under the Florida court order Plaintiff was
prohibited from contacting K.P., and required to remove all references of her in his book
3
During this time period, in September 2009 Plaintiff worked briefly for the Grand
Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization based out of Grand Forks
North Dakota counting cars. Complaint, Exhibit E. The Grand Forks/East Grand Forks
Metropolitan Planning Organization is an independent non-profit organization, and is not
an entity of the City of East Grand Forks. Id.
4
and internet blog. Complaint, Exhibit G. He was also prohibited from owning firearms
under the order. Id. Prior to the Florida court hearing Plaintiff claims he requested e-
mails and records of communications between K.P. and EGF PD regarding the
harassment restraining order, but was denied access to the records by Officer Hajicek.
Complaint, ¶ 49. The information requested by Plaintiff concerning K.P.’s conversations
with police about his harassment was classified as confidential domestic abuse
information and non-disclosable without a court order. See Affidavit of Officer Rodney
Hajicek, ¶ 5.
Two months after the restraining order was issued, Plaintiff was arrested by EGF
PD officers for posting information on his blog about K.P. in violation of the Florida
order. Id., ¶ 53. Plaintiff was taken to jail and released on condition he not post to his
blog while the criminal case was pending. Id., ¶ 54. In October 2012 Plaintiff pled guilty
to violating the Florida court order in Polk County District Court pursuant to an Alford
plea. Id., ¶ 58.4 Plaintiff was issued a sentencing order and placed on probationary
conditions. Id., ¶ 60.
4
Plaintiff’s claims against Attorney Ronald Galstad and Public Defender Michael
LaCoursiere stem from alleged coercion during the plea-bargaining process as part of his
criminal case.
5
December 2012 Search Warrant5
In December 2012, while still on probation, EGF PD became aware Plaintiff had
not removed all information referencing K.P. from his blog. Id., ¶ 63. East Grand Forks
Officer Aeisso Schrage obtained and subsequently executed a search warrant of
Plaintiff’s residence on December 14, 2012. Id., ¶ 67. The search warrant was issued by
Judge Jeff Remick as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to follow the conditions of his October
2012 sentencing order. Complaint, Exhibit J. The warrant permitted Officer Schrage to
seize, among other items, “computers which pertain to the violation of the Amended
Order for injunction for protection against repeated violence and the sentencing order
dated October 29, 2012.” Id. The warrant additionally allowed for seizure of “notes
and/or records which pertain to the violation [of the sentencing order] ... including those
contained on a computer hard drive, a storage disc, or other electronic media.” Id.
While executing the warrant Officer Schrage heard Plaintiff on the phone with an
unknown individual before knocking and announcing he was there to execute a search
warrant as Plaintiff immediately let officers into his apartment. Id., ¶ 81; See Affidavit of
Officer Aeisso Schrage, ¶ 3. Pursuant to the warrant Officer Schrage entered and
confiscated a computer hard drive, a cell phone, and other items. Id. ¶ 67; Affidavit of
Officer Aeisso Schrage, ¶ 4. Steps were taken to search the hard drive, but no relevant
information was found. Complaint, Exhibit J. The hard drive was subsequently returned
5
Around this same time, EGF PD continued to receive reports from Rhonda Callahan
regarding Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 80. Reports were also made by Plaintiff to EGF PD concerning
Mrs. Callahan and their child. Id. In July 2013 Rhonda Callahan’s husband Michael
Callahan was arrested and charged with a crime for threating Plaintiff. Id.
6
to Plaintiff. Complaint, ¶ 79. The hard drive was properly catalogued and retained as
evidence while in possession of the City Defendants. Affidavit of Officer Aeisso Schrage,
¶ 5.
2014 National Weather Service Employment
In January 2014 Plaintiff began a part-time job through a temp agency performing
janitorial services at the National Weather Service building in Grand Forks, North
Dakota. Id. ¶ 83. According to Plaintiff, the staffing agency entered into a long-term
marketing plan with him to build a client base in the Grand Forks metro area. Id.
Plaintiff reported his change of employment to Kim Nelson, the housing program
coordinator for HUD housing assistance through the East Grand Forks Economic
Development Housing Authority (“EDHA”).6 Id. ¶ 85.
Plaintiff’s supervisor at the National Weather Service, Jeanette Ringuette had
concerns regarding Plaintiff’s job performance and Ms. Ringuette voiced those concerns
6
An address verification form regarding confirmation of Plaintiff’s residence was mailed
to Mrs. Nelson while she was away from the office on medical leave. Complaint, Exhibit
S. The letter was sent from a federal agency and addressed specially to Mrs. Nelson, not
the City of East Grand Forks or the EDHA. Id. Not realizing the letter was regarding
Plaintiff Mrs. Nelson took it home with her. Id. After learning the envelope contained
information from a federal agency regarding Plaintiff’s residence, Mrs. Nelson spoke
with EDHA Director Jim Richter, who directed her to shred the verification form because
it was City policy to shred documents that contain personal information. Id. Regardless,
once it was learned the document needed to be sent to Plaintiff’s employer at the National
Weather Service the required information was provided and Plaintiff began his
employment without any interruption. Id.
7
to Plaintiff’s supervisor at the staffing agency. Id. ¶ 104. The staffing agency who hired
Plaintiff terminated his employment on July 11, 2014.7 Id. ¶ 110.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
On September 10, 2014 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that appears to
include a RICO claim, stating the “facts and circumstances clearly show Defendant(s) are
in violation of RICO.” Id. ¶ 131. Although the Amended Complaint includes a new
RICO claim, the original three claims for relief brought by Plaintiff in his first Complaint
under §1983 are no longer alleged. See Amended Complaint.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
East Grand Forks Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim will be granted when the
plaintiff’s cause of action fails to set forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. To avoid
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must include “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqpal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)).
When considering a facial attack on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
court must construe the allegations in the pleadings and make all reasonable inferences
7
Plaintiff alleges specious allegations against individuals during his employment in 2014.
However, it is uncontroverted that Plaintiff was terminated by the staffing agency based
on reports of poor performance.
8
arising from the pleadings in favor of the nonmoving party. Riley v. St. Louis County of
Missouri, 153 F.3d 627, 630 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1178 (1999); Morton
v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). The court should not, however, “blindly
accept the legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts.” Wescott v. Omaha,
901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). Similarly, courts “are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986). A court should grant a motion to dismiss if it is beyond doubt the nonmoving
party can prove no set of facts which would entitle them to relief. Id.
Ordinarily, when considering a motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6), if the
court reviews any matters outside the pleadings, such review will convert the motion to
one for summary judgment governed by Rule 56. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). But Rule
12(b)(6) motions do not automatically convert into Rule 56 motions for summary
judgment simply because one party submits additional matters in support of or in
opposition to the motion, as courts may consider matters of the public record or which do
not contradict the complaint when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Casazza v. Kiser,
313 F.3d 414, 416 (8th Cir. 2002). East Grand Forks Defendants cite to the materials
which are described in Plaintiff’s Complaint as documentation supporting his factual
allegations.
Rule 56(a) Summary Judgment
Alternatively, the East Grand Forks Defendants request the court grant the motion
to dismiss on the basis of summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when
there is no dispute between the parties about any genuine issue of material fact and when
9
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “At
the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). If “opposing parties tell two different stories,” the court
reviews the record to determine which facts are material and genuinely disputed, and then
views those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party – as long as those
facts are not so “blatantly contradicted by the record . . . no reasonable jury could
believe” them. Id.; Reed v. City of St. Charles, 561 F.3d 788, 790 (8th Cir. 2009). The
nonmoving party may not “rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on
the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.” Krenik v.
County of LeSueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995). To withstand the motion for
summary judgment, plaintiff must substantiate his allegations with “sufficient probative
evidence that would permit a finding in his favor without resort[ing] to ‘speculation,
conjecture, or fantasy.’” Reed, 561 F.3d at 790 (quotations omitted).
LEGAL ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO ALLEGE ANY

ACTIONABLE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.
Plaintiff’s §1983 claims against the City Defendants must be dismissed for failure
to comply with the claim for relief requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a):
A pleading that states a claim for relief must state:
[. . .]
10
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative
or different types of relief.
Although Plaintiff arguably complied with this requirement in his original Complaint, his
Amended Complaint does not contain a proper claim for relief regarding his earlier
§1983 claims. Plaintiff simply states within the Jurisdiction section of his Amended
Complaint that Defendants committed acts “under the Constitution and laws of the
United States bill of Rights, those being, but not limited to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 14th
Amendments, and retaliating against Plaintiff for exercise of constitutionally protected
speech . . ..” Amended Complaint, ¶ 1. As a result, the §1983 claims in Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint must be dismissed for failing to follow proper pleading
requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

CAN BE GRANTED.
Despite the length of his Complaint, Plaintiff has clearly failed to state a claim
against any East Grand Forks Defendants upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). As this Court is aware, “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Burton v. Richmond, 276 F.3d
973 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). “Dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) serves to eliminate actions which are fatally flawed in their legal
premises and deigned to fail, thereby sparing litigants the unnecessary pretrial and trial
11
activity.” Young v. City of St. Charles, Missouri, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001); see
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989). “To avoid dismissal, a complaint must
allege facts sufficient to state a claim as a matter of law and not merely legal
conclusions.” Young, 244 F.3d at 627; see also Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale
Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998). Finally, “[alt]hough pro se complaints are
to be construed liberally, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), they still must
allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914 (8th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is incoherent, ambiguous and without merit. Simply
mentioning different provisions of the Constitution and providing lengthy irrelevant
background facts cannot overcome the fact Plaintiff has failed to specifically allege any
facts rather than legal conclusions indicating his rights were violated by City of East
Grand Forks employees. Plaintiff’s Complaint is a classic example of the type of
Complaint this Court has continuously warned against— a Complaint which merely sets
forth conclusory allegations against numerous Defendants without providing any facts
which would support the claims as a matter of law. Access to the courts for claims such
as this trivialize the judicial process. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be
dismissed in its entirety.
III. THE EAST GRAND FORKS DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM PLAINTIFF’S §1983 CLAIMS.
Plaintiff claims East Grand Forks employees violated his constitutional rights over
a five year period. See Plaintiff’s Complaint, p. 4. East Grand Forks Defendants are
12
entitled to dismissal, or in the alternative summary judgment, regarding Plaintiff’s
constitutional allegations because qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims as a matter
of law.
Municipal employees are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct
violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009);
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). Qualified immunity is a question of
law to be decided by the district court. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991).
“Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of
litigation.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2158 (2001) (citing Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)). The privilege is an immunity from suit rather than a mere
defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is
erroneously permitted to go to trial. Id. Therefore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly
stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage of
litigation. Id.
The qualified immunity analysis requires the court to determine whether the
allegations amount to a constitutional violation, and then, whether that right was clearly
established. Sanders v. City of Minneapolis, 474 F.3d 523, 526 (8th Cir. 2007). If a
constitutional right is not asserted, the matter must be dismissed. See Cross v. City of
Des Moines, 965 F.2d 629, 632 (8th Cir. 1992). In determining whether a violation
occurred, the Court evaluates “whether the actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of
the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or
13
motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); Saucier,121 S.Ct. at 2158.
The Supreme Court permits courts to exercise their discretion in deciding which of the
two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first, in light of the
circumstances of the particular case at hand. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818
(2009).
Plaintiff has asserted the following lengthy, incoherent claims:
Count 1 – Florida harassment restraining order claims (See Complaint, ¶ 111- ¶ 126)
 Fourteenth Amendment / equal protection – Plaintiff alleges EGF PD violated

his equal protection rights by failing to provide him documents regarding
K.P.’s communications with EGF PD ahead of the Florida court hearing. He
also claims EGF PD’s failure to arrest Rhonda Callahan and ignore threats
made against him was a violation of his equal protection rights.
 Contracts Clause – Plaintiff alleges EGF PD’s actions interfered with his
freedom to contract regarding the arrangement he had with Mrs. Picazio.
 First Amendment / free speech – Plaintiff alleges EGF PD’s failure to provide
communications K.P. made to EGF PD resulted in a violation of his free
speech rights because the Florida judge ordered Plaintiff to refrain from
positing on the internet about K.P. and Plaintiff was retaliated against for
posting on his blog.
 Second Amendment / right to bear arms – Plaintiff alleges EGF PD’s failure to
provide communications K.P. made to EGF PD resulted in a violation of his
right to bear arms because the Florida judge ordered Plaintiff to surrender all
his firearms.
 Fourth Amendment / malicious prosecution – Plaintiff claims EGF PD officers

and City Attorney Ronald Galstad violated his constitutional rights by charging
him with violating a Florida court order in Minnesota district court.
 Fourth Amendment / unreasonable search and seizure – Plaintiff claims EGF

PD officers violated his constitutional right of unreasonable search by
overhearing a conversation he had with his attorney immediately prior to the
search of his apartment.
14
 Sixth Amendment / right to trial by jury – Plaintiff claims his public defender
worked with City Attorney Ronald Galstad to persuade him to plead guilty to
violating the Florida court order against his will in violation of his
constitutional rights.
Count 2 – Executed search warrant claims (See Complaint, ¶ 127- ¶ 142)
 Fourteenth Amendment/ equal protection – Plaintiff alleges EGF PD and Polk

County Sheriffs violated his equal protection rights by failing to provide
Plaintiff chain of custody documentation regarding the search of his hard drive.
 Fourth Amendment / unreasonable search and seizure – Plaintiff alleges either

Polk County deputies or EGF PD officers searched his hard drive outside the
scope of the search warrant.
 First Amendment / free speech – Plaintiff alleges the search of his hard drive
constituted an invasion of privacy and occurred as a result of retaliation for
exercising his freedom of speech through his blog posts.
 Fourth Amendment / malicious prosecution – Plaintiff claims City Attorney

Ronald Galstad misrepresented the extent of EGF PD’s search of his hard drive
in violation of his constitutional rights.
 Fourteenth Amendment / right to life, liberty, and property – Plaintiff alleges

after the search he was unable to access the information saved on the hard
drive, resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights.
Count 3 – National Weather Service employment claims (See Complaint, ¶ 143- ¶ 157)
 First Amendment / free speech – Plaintiff alleges he was fired from his job at
the National Weather Service as retaliation for his blog posts regarding the
East Grand Forks EDHA.
 Contracts Clause – Plaintiff claims the EDHA illegally interfered with his
ability to contract with the staffing agency that placed him at the National
Weather Service.
 Fourteenth Amendment / right to life, liberty, and property – Plaintiff alleges

employees at EDHA engaged in conduct which influenced the National
Weather Service and resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights.
15
A. No Constitutional Violation
As an initial matter, Plaintiff has indicated six different constitutional bases with at
least fifteen different factual allegations for his suit against the East Grand Forks
Defendants.8 Plaintiff’s shotgun pleadings are improper and fail to raise any
constitutional violation. See Liggins v. Morris, 749 F.Supp. 967, 971 (D. Minn. 1990)
(“constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 are discrete claims and as such
should not be pled in a shotgun manner.”).
1. Fourteenth Amendment – equal protection
Regarding his equal protection claims, Plaintiff appears to allege EGF PD failed to
provide documents regarding K.P.’s communications with EGF PD ahead of the Florida
court hearing, ignored threats made against him, and failed to account for his hard drive
through chain of custody documentation, resulting in a violation of his equal protection
rights. EGF PD could only have violated Plaintiff’s right to equal protection “if they
treated Plaintiff dissimilarly than similarly situated individuals.” Hansen v. Rimel, 104
F.3d 189, 190 (8th Cir. 1997). The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
prohibits government officials from selectively applying laws in a discriminatory way
motivated intentionally or purposefully by a prohibited characteristic, such as race or
ethnicity. Brandt v. Davis, 191 F.3d 887, 893 (8th Cir. 1999); Central Airlines, Inc. v.
United States, 138 F.3d 333, 334–35 (8th Cir. 1998). Therefore, to prove an equal
8
Regarding Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution and right to a jury trial claims, these
allegations stem from conduct of City Attorney Ronald Galstad and public defender
Michael LaCoursiere. Because Mr. Galstad and Mr. LaCoursiere are not employees of
the City, the City of East Grand Forks is not liable for these claims.
16
protection claim, a plaintiff must show (1) that he or she was singled out and treated
differently from persons similarly situated, and (2) that the plaintiff was singled out on
the basis of a prohibited characteristic, such as race. See Ellebracht v. Police Bd. of
Metro. Police Dep't of St. Louis, 137 F.3d 563, 566 (8th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, in the
public employment context, a plaintiff cannot present a ‘class-of-one’ theory due to the
discretionary nature of police officer decision making and it is paramount that a plaintiff
allege a constitutional ‘class’ to succeed on his claim. See Flowers v. City of
Minneapolis, 558 F.3d 794, 799 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating “we conclude that while a police
officer’s investigative decisions remain subject to traditional class based equal protection
analysis, they may not be attacked in a class-of-one equal protection claim.”).
Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating membership in any specific class
or that he was treated differently than others similarly situated, he has failed to allege a
cognizable equal protection violation and the City Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity. In addition, Plaintiff has provided no support indicating his factual allegations
rise to the level of an equal protection violation. Officer Hajicek’s reports concerned
information reported as part of a harassment investigation. The information provided by
K.P. was categorized as domestic abuse data, confidential under Minnesota law, and non-
disclosable without a court order. See Minn. Stat. §13.80 (describing domestic abuse
data as “all government data on individuals which is collected, created, received or
maintained by police departments . . . pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act, section
518B.01, are classified as confidential data . . .”); see also Minn. Stat. §518B.01
(clarifying information reported regarding Harassment Restraining Orders and Orders for
17
Protection fall under the definition of domestic abuse data.). Likewise, officers executed
a valid search warrant and after inspecting Plaintiff’s hard drive pursuant to the warrant
returned it to him. Plaintiff has provided no support for his proposition officers violated
his equal protection rights when they seized and searched his hard drive. Lastly, there are
simply no facts to support Plaintiff’s allegation officers failed to protect him. As Plaintiff
states in his Complaint, officers responded to every call which was made. For these
reasons Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts demonstrating a cognizable equal
protection claim against the City Defendants, and they are entitled to qualified immunity.
2. Fourth Amendment – unreasonable search and seizure
Looking at Plaintiff’s unreasonable search allegations, Plaintiff claims EGF PD
officers deliberately listened to conversations he had with his attorney while executing a
search warrant and exceeded the scope of the search warrant when examining his hard
drive. When executing a search warrant, a law enforcement official “must have probable
cause to believe that items seized in connection with a valid search warrant are associated
with suspected criminal activity.” Stepens v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2011).
Probable cause demands “only that the facts available to a reasonably cautious man
would warrant a belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful
as evidence of a crime.” Id. Items not mentioned in a warrant may be seized so long as
they are “reasonably related to the crime for which the warrant was issued.” Id. In
determining the appropriateness of the execution of the search warrant, courts look at the
objective reasonableness of the officer’s conduct from the perspective of a reasonably
objective police officer. Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861, 873 (8th Cir. 1998); see also
18
L.A. Cnty. v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 612 (2007) (“[T]he manner in which a warrant is
executed is subject to later judicial review as to its reasonableness.”).
Here, EGF PD officers executed a valid search warrant and confiscated evidence
described in the warrant, including “notes and records . . . contained on a computer hard
drive, a storage disc, or other electronic media.” Even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as
true, there are no facts indicating how searching the hard drive was unreasonable or
outside the scope of the warrant. Plaintiff’s crimes stem from posting on his internet blog
and it was reasonable to believe the evidence of the crime would be located on his hard
drive. Likewise, even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true regarding his eavesdropping
claim, officers were at his residence preparing to execute a search warrant and happened
to inadvertently overhear a conversation he was having. The Eighth Circuit has held
listening to a conversation between individuals on a telephone is not an unreasonable
search, and dismissal of a constitutional claim against law enforcement personnel is
appropriate. See Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d. 705, 706 (8th Cir. 1989) (affirming dismissal
of constitutional claims brought by plaintiff as a result of officers deliberately listening to
conversation plaintiff was having on telephone.) As a result, qualified immunity should
apply to Plaintiff’s unreasonable search claims and dismissal is appropriate.
3. First Amendment – free search
Turning to Plaintiff’s free speech claims, Plaintiff essentially claims EGF PD and
EDHA officials retaliated against him for the posts he published on his blog and limited
his free speech rights by failing to provide reports prior to the Florida court hearing. To
succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, “[P]laintiff must show a causal
19
connection between a defendant’s retaliatory animus and [plaintiff’s] subsequent
injury.” Osborne v. Grussing, 477 F.3d 1002, 1005 (8th Cir. 2007). Furthermore,
Plaintiff must show that the retaliatory motive was a “but-for” cause of the action—“i.e.
that the plaintiffs were “singled out” because of their exercise of constitutional
rights.” Id. Plaintiffs must additionally show the officers’ “adverse action caused [them]
to suffer an injury that would ‘chill a person of ordinary firmness’ from continuing in the
protected activity.” Williams v. City of Carl Junction, 480 F.3d 871, 878 (8th Cir. 2007).
Thus, a plaintiff alleging a retaliation claim must allege “(1) she was singled out for the
regulatory action while others similarly situated have not been so treated and (2) the
government’s discriminatory selection was based on her exercise of First Amendment
rights.” Gearin v. City of Maplewood, 780 F.Supp.2d 843, 860 (D. Minn. 2011). When
the ‘regulatory action’ in question involves criminal prosecution, a plaintiff “must prove,
as an element of her case, that the [defendants] lacked probable cause.” Id. 861. Plaintiff
alleges no facts he was ‘singled out’ differently than others similarly situated because of
his blog. EGF PD investigated all reports made and took appropriate steps, including
charging Mr. Callahan with threating Plaintiff. Further, even if Plaintiff can establish he
was singled out, the record clarifies he was not provided K.P.’s reports due to privacy
laws, not because of Plaintiff’s exercise of speech. For these reasons qualified immunity
should apply on Plaintiff’s free speech claims.
4. Contract Clause
Regarding his contract clause claims, Plaintiff claims EGF PD and East Grand
Forks EDHA interfered with a contract he had with both K.P. and a staffing agency. “In
20
considering Contracts Clause claims, courts look first to whether a state law has operated
to substantially impair a contractual relationship.” Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v.
Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411 (1983). To allege a proper
contracts clause claim, plaintiffs must plead: (1) a contractual relationship; and (2) a
change in the law substantially impairing that contractual relationship. Scott v. Public
School Retirement System of Missouri, 2010 WL 3749210, *10 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 21,
2010). Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of any contract between himself and
K.P. or the staffing agency. Further, he fails to allege any facts indicating a change in
state law has impaired his contractual relationship. As a result, qualified immunity
should apply.
5. Second Amendment – right to bear arms
Regarding his Second Amendment–right to bear arms claim, Plaintiff alleges the
EGF PD’s failure to disclose information resulted in a Florida judge issuing an order to
turn in his firearms. The Second Amendment does not confer an absolute and unfettered
right on individuals to bear arms. See Blackburn v. Jansen, 241 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1051
(D. Neb. 2003) (citing United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Therefore absent “a fact-specific showing that possession of the regulated weapon bears a
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the
Second Amendment is not implicated.” United States v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891, 893–94
(8th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992)
(Second Amendment only protects weapon possession reasonably related to preservation
of militia). The decision to limit Plaintiff’s access to firearms was a standard condition as
21
part of a Florida restraining order and was not directed by EGF PD. Further, there is no
indication, and Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts, that EGF PD somehow interfered
with the preservation of a militia.
Regardless, even if EGF PD can somehow be framed to have a role in limiting
Plaintiff’s access to firearms, “no federal court has, to date, held that the Due Process
Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
incorporates the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms against the states.”
Dorr v. Weber, 741 F.Supp.2d 993, 1005 (N.D. Iowa 2010). In other words, only the
federal government, not state or local governments, can be sued for violating the Second
Amendment. As a result, qualified immunity should apply.
6. Fourteenth Amendment – due process
Plaintiff further appears to allege violations of his due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment.9 Plaintiff fails to properly indicate the true nature of his claim,
fails to specify whether he alleges a substantive or procedural due process violation, and
fails to present facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss his allegations.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “[s]ubstantive due process[, which]
prevents the government from engaging in conduct that shocks the conscience or
interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Sheets v. Butera, 389
F.3d 772, 778 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 643 (8th Cir.
2002) (alterations in original) (quoting Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051 (8th Cir.
9
Plaintiff does not specifically refer to the claims as due process claims. Instead he
describes the claim as a violation of “the right to life, liberty, and property under the
Fourteenth Amendment.”
22
1998) (en banc)). “[C]onduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any
government interest is the sort of official action most likely to rise to the conscience-
shocking level.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140
L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). “[T]he threshold question is whether the behavior of the
governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the
contemporary conscience.” Id. at 848 n. 8. The Fourteenth Amendment “does not
protect against all deprivations of liberty. It protects only against deprivations of liberty
accomplished ‘without due process of law.’” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145
(1979). There is no guarantee under the Fourteenth Amendment that only the guilty will
be arrested. Id. In addition, “to establish a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff
need not only show a protected interest, but must also show that he or she was deprived
of that interest without sufficient process, i.e., without due process. The due process
clause ensures every individual subject to a deprivation “the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Dupree v. City of Jacksonville, 4:08-
cv-00327, 2009 WL 1392578, *5 (E.D. Ark. May 13, 2009) (citing Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)).
Plaintiff has not provided any facts indicating ‘conscious-shocking’ conduct by
EGF PD. Officers disclosed records according to data privacy laws, arrested Plaintiff
pursuant to a valid court order, and executed a properly obtained search warrant. Further,
Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific protected interest was violated without proper
notice or process. For these reasons, the City Defendants should be entitled to qualified
immunity from Plaintiff’s due process claims as well.
23
B. Not Clearly Established
Because there is no constitutional violation, any argument the constitutional right
was clearly established is futile. However, even if the court determines any City
Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity remains
appropriate because it was not clearly established the conduct alleged by Plaintiff rises to
the level of a constitutional violation.
“Clearly established Federal law . . . refers to the holdings, as opposed to the
dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions at the time of the relevant state-court decision.”
Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649, 653 (2006) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,
412 (2000)). As the Supreme Court determined in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739
(2002):
[Q]ualified immunity operates “to ensure that before they are subjected to
suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.” Saucier v. Katz, [533
U.S. at 206]. For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its
contours “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that
an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action
in question has previously been held unlawful, see Mitchell [v. Forsyth, 472
U.S. 511, 535 (1958)]; but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law
the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, [483 U.S. 635,
640] (1987).
(emphasis added). Under the specific factual allegations put forth by Plaintiff there is
absolutely no relevant case law indicating the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.
First, K.P.’s communications to Officer Hajicek are considered confidential
domestic abuse data. There is no case law known to the City Defendants indicating
compliance with State data privacy statutes constitutes a violation of the Constitution.
24
Second, the facts alleged by Plaintiff indicate EGF PD reasonably responded to each
report which was made—both about Plaintiff and from Plaintiff. There is no case law
dictating it is a constitutional violation if officers refrain from initiating criminal charges
after every report made. Third, in executing the search warrant officers act reasonably
and pursuant to the language of the warrant. City Defendants are unable to find any case
law supporting Plaintiff’s allegation that seizing and searching a hard drive pursuant to a
warrant allowing for the search of computers is a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights. Likewise, it is not unconstitutional to overhear a conversation immediately prior
to executing a knock and announce search warrant.
As a result, even if any of Plaintiff’s incoherent allegations can be construed to
allege a constitutional violation, there simply is no case law indicating the alleged
conduct was a clearly established violation at the time. For this reason qualified
immunity applies and Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.
IV. PLAINTIFF HAS NO VIABLE MONELL CLAIM.
In addition to the litany of individual Constitutional claims, Plaintiff’s Complaint
also appears to raise a Monell claim alleging City employees acted in accordance with an
unconstitutional City of East Grand Forks custom, pattern, practice, or policy.10 Under
42 U.S.C. §1983, a municipality or other political subdivision may not generally be held
vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir.
10
Plaintiff has sued the “City of East Grand Forks” as well as City employees in their
“official and individual” capacities.
25
1999). “A municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its officials or
employees when those acts implement or execute an unconstitutional municipal policy or
custom.” Reasonover v. St. Louis County, Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 583 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing
Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1204). “To establish liability, [Plaintiff] must prove a [municipal]
custom or policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation . . . [and]
‘before a municipality can be held liable ... there must be an unconstitutional act by a
municipal employee.’” Reasonover, 447 F.3d at 583 (citing Russell v. Hennepin
County, 420 F.3d 841, 846 (8th Cir. 2005)). A municipal policy is not unconstitutional if
it might permit unconstitutional conduct in some circumstances; it is unconstitutional
only if it requires persons to act unconstitutionally. See Handle v. City of Little Rock, 772
F.Supp. 434, 438 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The lack of a pattern of unconstitutional misconduct
effectively ends the court’s inquiry. See Thelma D. ex rel. Delores A. v. Bd. of Educ.,
934 F.2d 929, 933 (8th Cir. 1991). To establish the existence of a municipal custom,
Plaintiff must satisfy three requirements:
1. The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of

unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity’s
employees;
2. Deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of such conduct by
the governmental entity’s policymaking officials after notice to the
officials of the misconduct; and
3. Th[e] plaintiff[’s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental
entity’s custom, i.e. [proof] that the custom was the moving force
behind the constitutional violation.
Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Ware v. Jackson County, 150 F.3d 873, 880 (8th Cir.
1998)).
26
The record lacks any evidence of an unconstitutional widespread policy or custom
by the City of East Grand Forks and its employees. In fact, Plaintiff has failed to
expressly specify or plead a widespread custom or policy depriving him of a
constitutional right. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had pled a widespread policy, mere
allegations without factual proof cannot support a claim for improper custom or policy.
Furthermore Plaintiff has not shown “deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of
such conduct by the governmental entity’s policy making officials . . ..” For these
reasons, Plaintiff cannot establish a Monell claim and his civil rights claims against the
City of East Grand Forks should be dismissed.
V. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE A PROPER RICO CLAIM.
In his Amended Complaint Plaintiff appears to raise a new claim under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Federal Courts have
specifically held governmental entities cannot form the requisite criminal intent to be
sued under RICO. Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296, 1300 (9th Cir. 1996). Additionally,
RICO prohibits, among other activities, conducting an enterprise’s affairs through
racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. §1962(c). A prima facie RICO case requires proof of
the occurrence of: (1) one of the listed predicate acts (2) by an enterprise (3) through a
pattern (4) of racketeering activity. Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 620
(9th Cir. 2004). In meeting this criteria, Plaintiff must demonstrate an injury to a specific
business or property interest from defendants engaging in at least two acts of racketeering
activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1961. See, Bowen v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th
Cir. 1997); Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 898 (9th Cir. 2005). The predicate racketeering
27
activities include murder, kidnapping, controlled substance distribution, slavery, and
human trafficking among other similar acts. See 18 U.S.C. §1961.
Here, Plaintiff has not pled with specificity even one instance of a predicate act as
defined by the RICO statute, much less two, in which the City Defendants participated.
Instead, Plaintiff tries to reach the City of East Grand Forks through unsubstantiated
allegations of a conspiracy. Section 1962(d) prohibits anyone from conspiring to violate
the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c). Under §1962(d), plaintiff must show that
defendants objectively manifested their agreement to participate in a racketeering
enterprise through the commission of two or more predicate crimes – proof of an
agreement. Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiff has
not presented any evidence of a “conspiracy” or “agreement” to commit two or more
predicate racketeering acts. As a result, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which this Court can grant relief.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the East Grand Forks Defendants respectfully request
this Court grant their Motion for Dismissal or in the alternative Summary Judgment,
dismissing Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety with prejudice, and award Defendants their
costs, fees and other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
28

(952) 548-7200
Fax: (952) 548-7210
nathan@irc-law.com

29

Plaintiff,
vs.

Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1
Nathan C. Midolo, attorney for the below listed City Defendants, certifies that this
Memorandum of Law complies with the length limitation and with the type size
limitation contained in Local Rule 7.1 as follows:
There are 7,427 words in this Memorandum of Law, the word count of the word
processing program has been applied specifically to include all text, including headings,
footnotes, and quotations. The word processing software used to prepare this brief was
MS Word.

Jon K. Iverson, #146389
(952) 548-7200
Fax: (952) 548-7210
nathan@irc-law.com

[{cu L11 O
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO EAST GRAND FORKS DEFENDA}{T'S

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff will hereby address Defendant's MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

DISMISSAL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Notwithstanding PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT sets forth a very

coherent, streaming set of facts and circumstances, which clearly dernonstrates Defendant
City engaged in a pattern and practice of violating PlaintifPs constitutional rights,
Plaintiff will hereby address statements made by Defendant City in the Memorandum;
Plaintiff will begin with a Statement of Clarification.
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CLARIFICATION
Defendant City conspired, and is conspiring, with others, to protect a criminal enterprise
called 'Boardwalk Enterprises LLP' (hereby referred to as Boardwalk) from exposure by
Plaintiff.
Defendant City has conspired with, but not limited to, mernbers of the East Grand Forks
Police Department, Polk County SherifPs Office, Minnesota Public Defender's Office,
Charlson & Jorgeson Law Office, Kim Picazio Law Office P.A., and Economic
Development and Housing Authority.
Upon information, facts, and circumstances, Plaintiff also believes Defendant Cityhas
conspired with Matthew J. Petrovich, Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Program.
In 2009, Defendants Galstad and Richter, along with others, were operating the money
laundering and loan fraud scheme - Boardwalk. Any exposure of the scheme was
prevented by the law enforcement arm of the criminal enterprise - EGFPD. Defendants
Hedlund, Hajicek, and Schrage, conspired, and coordinated with, Defendant Galstad to
use law enforcernent power to oppress and bring charges against Plaintiff. Defendant
Galstad subsequently conspired with Defendant LaCoursiere to force Plaintiff into an
Alford (guilty) plea using coercion. Defendant Galstad subsequently conspired with
Defendant Schrage to obtain a search warrant to seize Plaintiff s computer and hard-
drive. Defendant City, through its agent, Defendant Galstad, then conspired with
Defendant Norland to secretly/illegally search PlaintifPs hard drive. Beginning in 2009,
and through 2014, Plaintiff has been a victim of Color of Law violations as set forth in
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
RE&HX,FD
ti ?$\\
CIt,{
couFrt ocT -3 201
,,r-5;3;;?lt\s'-'N
a-
Defendant City conspired, and is conspiring, to conceal racketeering activities involving

another criminal enterprise; abiofuel company called Alternative Biofuel Technologies
Inc. (ABT), which was seized by federal authorities during the RICO
investigation/prosecution of Scott W. Rothstein, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (hereby
referred to as ABT)
Defendant City, along with others, violated Plaintiff s constitutional rights in violation of
42 U.S.C. 1983.
Defendant City, along with others, violated 18 U.S.C. 1962 (RICO).
Boardwalk was/is a personal endeavor of defendants represented by Defendant City,

which said defendant developed, nurtured, advanced, and protected in their individual
capacity,while using their official position, resources, and connections in the East Grand
Forks City Police Department, and other law enforcement tools and connections available
(e.g. Polk County Sheriff s Office forensic investigator Michael Norland).
ABT was a fraudulent biofuel company owned by Scott Rothstein, Michael Picazio, and
Kim Picazio. The Company was a front to con 'marks' into investing in a biofuel
technology that did not exist in reality.
Defendant City conspired with, but not limited to, Kim Picazio and Michael Picazio to
protect both criminal enterprises (ABT and Boardwalk) from FBI scrutiny, which was
being brought onto all parties by Plaintiff- an investigative journalist covering the
national profile kidnapping of Haleigh Ann-Marie Cummings (Plaintiffwas actively
communicating actionable leads to the FBI).
Defendant City conspired with others to violate PlaintifPs constitutional rights through a
scheme that involved co-conspirator, Kim Picazio.
In 2011, Kim Picazio fraudulently obtained a 'domestic violence protection order' against
Plaintifffrom a divorce court in the state of Florida, despite Plaintiffnever having met
Kim Picazio.
The facts of the aforementioned conspiracy and rights violations are set forttr in
.THE FLORIDA DIVORCE
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT undeT
COURT SCHEME'. -
Defendant City, using Defendant Galstad and Defendant Hajicek as its agents, used the
fraudulently obtained Florida court order to arest Plaintiff without legal venue, and
began a malicious prosecution, with intent to violate PlaintifPs constitutional rights.
In2}l3,Plaintiffreported Defendant City to the Minnesota State Auditorand requested

an audit. Boardwalk (a money laundering and loan fraud scheme) was exposed and the
storybecame a regular front page item in the Grand Forks Herald.
.-'. 'L'
,
[n201.4, Defendant Galstad, Defendant City, and Boardwalk, began to hold meetings in
violation of the Minnesota open meeting law (in the expert opinion of Attorney Mark
Anfinson, as reported by the Grand Forks Herald).
)
Defendant Galstad and Defendant City are actively violating laws in an atternpt to avoid
prosecution from state and federal authorities for a myriad of charges that would include
RICO.
1. On page 3 of Defendant's MEMORANDUM, under STATEMENT OF

TINDISPUTED FACTS, is a sub-heading that reads: (FLORIDA
HARAS SMENT RESTRAINING ORDER".
Defendant attempts to dramatically mislead the Court by mischaracterizing an

"Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence" (issued under Florida domestic
violence law) as a "Haxassment Restraining Order".
Defendant is shategically avoiding the 'domestic violence' language because it is absurd

on its face and immediately draws attention to the divorce court scheme.
Defendant is seen to toggle between the two descriptions of the Order placed against
Plaintiff- depending on what version seems the most convenient to the false narrative
needed by Defendant
Defendant attempts to cloud the Court's perception of this very critical dynamic exposes I
Defendant's guilt and liability in this civil rights - color of law action.
Defendant knows for a fact that Plaintiffnever met the fake domestic violence victim,
Kim Picazio - and Defendant does not want to showcase anything that casts a bright light
on the fact that the Injunction was obtained in a Florida divorce court using a Florida
domestic violence statute.
Defendant knows exhibits of record prove that Defendant Hajicek deliberately withheld
police incident reports, which Plaintiff needed in 2011 to defend himself against the
fraudulent Florida case. Defendant knows the police rqlorts, which Hajicek himself
authored, showed no domestic relationship existed between Plaintiffand the fake victim
and no laws were beingbroken. ,.
Defendant engaged in deliberate obstruction ofjustice to aid, advance, and perpetuate the
fraudulent divorce court scheme in Florida.
The fake domestic violence victim, Kim Picazio, a civil divorce attorney from Fort
Lauderdale, was/is a suspect in the federal kidnapping of Haleigh Ann-Marie
Cummings. Fake victim Kim Picazio fraudulently obtained an lnjunction for Protection
Against Domestic Violence from a Broward County, Florida divorce court (DVCE). SEE
EXHIBIT G PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant knew the true nature of the (media) relationship between Plaintiffand fake
domestic violence victim Kim Ficazio, as is evidenced in EXHIBIT B (a police incident
report) in PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
VIOLENCE 'VICTIMS' TO THE FLORIDA COURT ORDER DURING THE

MALICIOUS MINNESOTA ACTION
Defendant City sought to defame, discredit, intimidate, and maliciously prosecute

Plaintiff, a journalist that threatened Defendant's existing criminal enterprise(s) and
racketeering activities.
Defendant sougfrt to accomplish the task of discrediting Plaintifi in part, by discrediting

PlaintifPs professional reputation (Plaintiffis an award winning reporter and journalist).
Defendant sought to accomplish this task by capitalizingon the fraudulently obtained

domestic violence order, which Defendant originally conspired to nurture into existence.
Defendant took overt actions against Plaintiffto accomplish the aforementioned

objective, which involved communications with Michael Picazio.
On October 29,2012, Defendant City's attorney and agent, Ronald Galstad, and
Defendant LaCoursiere inexplicably and inappropriately enhanced the Florida Injunction
for Protection Against Domestic Violence.
Based upon discussions between Defendant Galstad and Defendant LaCoursiere, the
Minnesota Disfrict Court ordered Plaintiffmust remove any and.all content regarding
Kim Picazio, as well as her husband, 'Michael Picazio", and her entire "family'' from
PlaintifPs website.
Defendant kneWknows that Plaintiffhad neverpublished anything about Kim Picazio's

children or family. While the Florida domestic violence order restricted Plaintifffrom
publishing anything about Kim Picazio, Defendant Galstad, along with Defendant
LaCoursiere, succeeded at adding additional 'victims' and restrictions to the Order in
Minnesota - to include Kim Picazio's entire "family''.
The so-called 'agreement' was reached out of the presence of Plaintiff, and only agreed
to under extreme duress and threats that Plaintiffdid not dare alert the Court to (even if
asked).
Official court fanscriptions show Judge Yon asked Michael LaCoursiere if an agreement
had been reached, to which LaCoursiere answered:
MR. LACOURSIERE: "The conditions are that [TimothyHolmseth] would,*. Uo*rt

anything that he has on the Web about Kim Picazio or anything that pertains to her
family''
-Transcribed from court proceeding / October 29,2072
The frame-up / set-up of Plaintiff was being slowlybuilt, to create the illusion that
Plaintiffwas a threat to an entire family - including children - 2,000 miles away. The
language was being ADDED in the Minnesota Court by Defendant Galstad and
Defendant LaCoursiere.
Michael Picazio is a felon, convicted of theft, after he was prosecuted as part of a large
organized theft ring (organized crime) that stole boats from a marina and hansported
thJm out of state to sell thern. SEE EXHIBIT B
On Novemb er 9,2072,Defendant Rodney Hajicek made the following entry into a police
report:
"On t t /07/I 2 I did receive a phone call frorn Kim's husband Mike Piczio and Mike
expressed that he was angry about ihe posts online again p) ffm Holmseth and informed
me that he almost lost a business contract because of the things that Mr. Holmseth is
posting. Mike stated that Mr. Holmseth has upset his entirefamily again and stated that
his wife was still at home in her pajarnas because of these posts online starting all over
again. I informed Mr. Picazio to fi.le for a ltarassment order in the same manner as his
wife did and that I would express his concerns to the Citv Attornev [emphasis added] ".
l
The aforementioned police report entry shows Defendant Hajicek told Michael Picazio to
do the same thing [Kim Picazio] did - - -
*I informed Mr. Picazio tofilefor a harassment
order in the sarne manner as his wife did... " (i.e. obtain a fraudulent order from a Divorce
Court in Florida using domestic violence law) and advised he would talking to Ronald
Galstad about it.
The aforementioned police incident report entry shows the active communication and
involvement of Defendant City and Defendant Galstad in the acquisition of fraudulent
court order(s) out of the state ofFlorida. (
Email evidence presented herein as EXHIBIT A shows that between 2009 and 2014,
while Kim Picazio and her husband were in contact with Defendant City and Defendant
Galstad, they were deeply involved in criminal activity. The emails are so numerous and
extensive that only a few samples will be typed into the Memorandum.
EXHIBIT A testifies against Defendant City's fake 'victims' - Kim and Michael Picazio
are fraudsters.
In an email dated October 6,2009, Kim Picazio sent an email to Michael Picazio on her
law office letterhead and said:
"Mike: we had several from a "Nicki" on the home voicemail. She istfrom
messages
Ferguson Enterprises. Number 786-264-7032, Jile #266146. She said youwalked out of
the store with merchandise, and gave them a bad check. She said you would be reported
to their attorneys, and that what you did was afelony, and they would be pressing
criminal ch.arges, since you had not taken care of the bad check. Mike, WHAT NOW?
Also, I just got a callfrom rny morn. She'wants her money backfrom thefloors. You have
had the money since early April to installfloors, and you gave her a drop dead promise
that it would be done by the end of Sept. Still no floors, and no rnoney. You won't let
anyone speakwith Garret, the guy you said you gave her $16,000 and she said she does
not believeyou ever gave him the money. Uyouwon't let me speakwith Garret, maybe
you should pyt my motn on the phone with hilnfor an update. She's had it, and thinl<s
you've lied to her. That you spent the money she gave us to help us out.
. The orthodontist called about the check I gave them that you took all the money out of the
account and it bounced. So they have been noffied that the check bounced.
The school's Casino night is this Saturday. We never RSW'ed because we didn't have
the 575 to send in. So we're not going to the school's Gala, I guess.
Scott called and wants to lvtow wlten I'm putting in the cashfor the bounced check I gave
him due to you taking all the money out of my business account. I didn't answer the
phone.
Uyouwon't downwith me and make a plan of how we're going to handle this, I don't
sit
lotow what's going to happen. We have nothing brt. We have lost everything. SEE
E)GIIBIT A
While Kim Picazio ma:ried a convicted felon, that was part of a ring that stole boats and
shaved the hull numbers offand nied to sell them out of state, she purports to be
surprised that her husband has committed another felony - theft. She is also interestingly
compelled to generate an email that declares she is a victim of her husband's bad ways.
The bizarre perpetual tirade of rants made by Kim Picazio against her husband, as seen
throughout EXHIBIT A, continues on for the next five years. The redundant email
evidence (suspiciously) created by Kim Picazio is adizzyrng kaleidoscope of accusations,
made by an officer of the court (Kim Picazio) against her husband - accusing him of
lyrng, cheating, stealing, and fraud.
On Novemb er 12,20l0,Kim Picazio sent an email to Michael Picazioon her law office
letterhead and said:
"Mike, I arn on the line with Wachovia. My accounts are stillfrozen, and I amfreaking
out. I am holdingfor the rep from Wachovia on the other line. Fuck everyone else -
including Gary. You DID NOT PUT MONEY IN THE FUCKING BANK AND MY
ACCOUNTS ARE STILL FROZEN. THE I-ADY CANNOT BELIEI.E YOU TOLD HER
YOU WERE GOING STMIGHT TO THE BANK AND SHE IS "FLOORED'' THAT SHE
SEES NO MONEY IN T'HERE. I amfucking livid! She also told me that she has a total of
4 Checlrs by you that were returned, and that it looks like you are "kiting" checks. She
also said she can't believe you would put me, an attorney, in this position. Those were
her exact words. WOULD YOU STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO EI/ERYONE ELSE
AND GET YOUR MESS STMIGHT WHICH IS AFFECTING MY FUCKING
BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!! MY CHECK TO THE PHONE GW FOR BRIAN'S PHONE IS
BEING RETURNED - Check# 92 from account 1577. I have employees to pay. How the
fuck could you do this to me??? !!!!!!!!.!!
In 2010, Kim Picazio is still shocked and surprised that the felon she married is
committing financial crimes.
On January l2,20l0,Kim Picazio sent an email to Michael Picazio on her law office
letterhead and said:
"Another check from a closed account Mike? What the fuck is wrong with you? Really.
What is wrong with you?! They are considering closing my accounts. This is number
three from one of your closed accounts. This was from Allstate Pumping, I believe.
You've tried that old checkbook several times. That one was one of the ones that got my
Bank of Anierica account shut down and closed. You need to ernail or fax me your last
statement from that account. If you don't have it, for whatever excuse you think up, you
need to get the bank on the phone with me and veriff that account is still open. I am just
blown awayby you".
Yep - Kim Picazio is still shocked and surprised - and still expressing her dismay in
emails to her husband.
E)GIIBIT A contains countless emails exactly like the aforementioned spanning several
years. Yet - Kim Picazio does not divorce Michael Picazio, the felon she married; nor
boes she report him to the\authorities. She simply generates emails and sends them to
Michael Picazio's email account, blaming him for all their problems via hysterical
prpfane laced rants; thus creating a paper trail that points to him.
In exhibits herein, Kim Picazio mentions aPicazio bank account at Wachovia Bank.
On July 12,2071, Kim Picazio telephoned the East Grand Forks Police Department
(EGFPD) to complain that Plaintiffhad published her bank name, routing number, and
phone number. SEE EXHIBIT C
However - what Plaintifflegally published was actually a Westem Union money transfer
document to Wachovia Bank, which Plaintiffreceived from a journalism source (Picazio
fraud victim), named Susan Earman, who had been swindled out ofmoney ($8,000) -
mbney that Susan Earman gave the Picazio's believing she was helping in the search for
the missing child Haleigh Ann-Marie Cummings. Susan Earman provided Plaintiffan
Affidavit at the time. SEE EXHIBIT D
Incriminating evidence against Defendant City is shown in DGIIBIT I of PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT where it is shown that somebody altered the police
incident.report regarding the July 12,2071, call by Kim Picazio, to conceal the fact thpt a
recording of the call had be'en made. The altered version also removes Defendant Lt.
Rodney Hajicek's rurme from the sunmary. When Plaintifflater requested the audio file,
Defendant Chief Michaef Hedlund advised Plaintiffthat the file had been destroyed.
Plaintiffattempted to obtain the aforementioned police incident report in advance of the

hearing in Broward County, Florida regarding fake domestic violence victim Kim
Picazio's petition for an Injunction, but Defendant City would not tum over the public
records.
BANKRUPTCY COURT
On April 23,2012, Kim Picazio filed a MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER OR

ALTERNATIVELY TO SEAL in advance of a bankruptcy hearing before the United
States Bankruptcy Court - Southern District of Florida. SEE DGIIBIT E Kim Picazio
argued she had a stalker from Minnesota and needed protection regarding document
production
The transcription of the aforernentioned bankruptcy court proceeding shows that Kim
Picazio asserted she was being stalked by "Tim Homeseth [sic]" from "Minnesota". She
told the Court that Plaintiffwas set to stand trial for violating an Injunction. She further
told the Court that Plaintiff was an agent of John and Maria Burgun, creditors in the
bankruptcy case, a4d was receiving information from the Burgun's with which Plaintiff
would stalkher. SEE EXHIBIT F
Fake domestic violence victims Kim and Michael Picazio were receiving their credibility
and were emboldened by the malicious prosecution brought by their co-conspirator from
Minnesota.
In an email sent from Kim Picazio to Michael Picazio on August 24,2012, she said:
"You are unbelievable, Mike. And let me guess, all the other hundreds of bogus checks
you've written to me, and otlters, were innocent mistakes, too. You can't be honest fyou
tried".
In2ll2,fim picario still finds it'trnbelievable" that the felon she married writes bogus
checks.
On November 7,2012, Michael Picazio telephoned Defendant Hajicek at the EGFPD.

Hajicek recorded Michael Picazio's 'report' in a police incident report. "I did receive a
phone callfrom Kim's husband Mike Picazio and Mike expressed that he was angry
about the posts online again by Tim Holmseth and informed me that he almost lost a
business contract because of the things that Mr. Holmseth is posting. Mike stated that
Mn Holmseth has upset his entirefamily again and stated that his wife was still at home
in her pajamas because of these posts online starting all over again. I informed Mr.
Picazio tofilefor a Harassment Order in the same manner that his wife did and that I
would express his concerns to the City Attorney". SEE DGIIBIT G
In2}l'4Kim Picazio sends yet another email to Michael Picazio,accusing him of

criminal activity and as always; claiming to be the victim. On January 16,20I4,I<im
Picazio wrote in an email: '
"Are you kidding me, Mike? I've had enough. You stole my dead grandmother's
checkbook and are writing bogus checks to your seff? That's it. Enough. I'm contacting
the bank tomorrow. This is the most disgustr.ng thing I have ever seen". SEE DGIIBIT A
kL2Ol4,Kim Picazio was still shocked by the bad behavior of the felon she married.
Between 2009 and 2014 Kim Picazio remained manied to Michael Picaiio, and
continuously engaged in financial endeavors with him.
The full gravity of the criminal activity of the Picazio's is realized in E)GIIBIT H, which
was filed by Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer P.A. to the United States Bankruptcy
Court- Southem District of Florida- Fort Lauderdale Division on Septernber 5,2014,
and details the extent of the Picazio's criminal conduct.
Example 1: Page 16, line itern 35: The purported Suggestion of Bankruptcy, Notice of
Banlvuptcy Case Filing andfacsimile Confi.rmation, alleging a December 6, 2013
banlcruptcyfiling arefraudulent, and perjurious as afabrication of court documents and
pleadings.
Example 2:Page 17,line item 38: Further, to support thefalse representations regarding
fraud on his bank account and a $1.5 Million deposit into American National Bank,
Picazio prepared afax letterfrom "Bob Badgley" at American National Bank, a
federally insured bank, which he admittedlyfaxed to FP&L on December 2, 2013, and
that hefabricated the letter prepared on bank letterhead. At his deposition on July 8,
2014, the Debtor admitted that hefraudulently prepared the letter,faxed out, and signed
it as "Bob Badgley."
Upon information and belief, the aforementioned has been submitted to a federal
prosecutor and Michael Picazio is going to be indicted. His wife - Kim Picazio - is also
under investigation for fraud. .
The aforementioned facts. circumstances. and associated exhibits. prove beyond any
doubt that Defendant has actively and knowinely participated. and continues to
participate. in a fraudulent 'divorce court' domestic violence' scheme used to obstruct
iustice (in multiple cases. afflectine multiple victims of the.Picazios) and violate the
constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
2. On page 27 of Defendant's MEMORANDUM, under PLAINTIFF HAS

FAILED TO ALLEGE A PROPER RICO CLAIM
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT alleges Plaintiffis a victim of RICO.
Prima Facie evidence exists that Defendant(s) violated 18 U.S.C. 1962 (Racketeer
Influenced and Comrpt Organizations)
As the Court knows, a Prima Facie RICO case requires proof of the occrurence of; (1)
one of the listed predicate acts (2) by an enterprise (3) through a pattern (a) of
racketeering activity.
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF RICO
As is set forth in the sum and substance of PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT, Plaintiff, over the period of five years, has been the victim of 18 U.S.C.
1962 (RrCO).
For five years Plaintiffhas been subjected to:
1) DeathThreats
2) Assault
3) Sexual Harassment
4) BlackrnaiVExtortion
5) lntimidation
6) MaliciousProsecution
7) Stalking
8) Obstruction of Justice
Criminal acts have been visited upon Plaintiffby actors from other states, already
convicted of state and federal crimes; and/or actors directly associated through business
ventures with a Defendant alreadv the subiect of an active RICO prosecution in the
state of Florida; to include:
o Scott W. Rothstein (RICO Defendant) (Subsequent Federal Felon Convict)

o Michael J. Picazio (Felon)
o Richard P. Greene (Felon)
o William E. Staubs (Charged with Felony False Imprisonment - Pled Guilty to
Assault)
RICO violations being visited upon Plaintiffwere for the express purpose of protecting
existing criminal enterprises; those enterprises being:
o Alternative Biofuels Technologies Inc (ABT) @lorida)
I Scott W. Rothstein (RICO Defendant) (Subsequent Federal Felon

Convict) - Y, owner of ABT
, I Michael J. Picazio (Felon) -Yz owner of ABT
. Richard P. Greene (Felon)
r Kim Picazio -Yz owner of ABT
o Boardwalk Enterprises LLP (Minnesota)
. Ronald Galstad (East Grand Forks City Attomey)

. James Richter (Economic Housing and Development Director)
' Dan Stauss (brother of East Grand Forks Mayor)
'. Scott Stauss
Lynn Stauss (Mayor- City of East Grand Forks)
r Jane Moss
r Karl Lindquist (former City Attorney and former City Adminishator)
I John Doe
. Jane Doe
o Haleigh Bug (Florida)
=+ Haleigh Bug was a fraudulent endeavor erected to solicit

donations from the public for non-existent searches for a child
victim of a staged kidnapping.
+ William Staubs told Plaintiffthat Kim Picazio told him she had 10
more cases (fake kidnappings) just like this one (Haleigh
Cummings) lined up (i.e. the group was going to kidnap more
children - place them in the underground - and then conduct
national profile (televised) fake searches for the missing children.
Complaints from the sawy public forced Kim Picazio to set up a

= non-profit with the Deparhnent of Agriculture. Evidence shows
Kim Picazio and Michael Picazio continued to solicit money from
the public regarding the missing child under the guise of 'Hal.eigh
Bug' and pocketed the money, which they did not report to the
IRS.
+ Further evidence contained in the exhibits shows the EGFPD

manipulated documents and destroyed evidence regarding this
matter to protect Kim Picazio.
I Kim Picazio
r Michael Picazio (Felon)
r Marie Griffis
'. Crystal Sheffield
Jeremiah Regan )
r John Regan (Felon - Sexual Conduct)
. William Staubs
. .Art Harris
r Wayanne Kruger
o Qllegal) child sex trafficking / child pornography ring (International)
/. Kim Picazio
. Michael Picazio (Felon)
. Jererniah Regan
. John Regan (Felon)
'. William Staubs
Wayanne Kruger ftnowledge ofl
. Richard Grund
r Teresa Neves
. Ronald Cummings
. Misty Croslin (knowledge of)
r John Marcus Sheffield ftnowledge oD
o Xentelr lnc.
. Donna Wagoner
. SUMMARY
Plaintifl an investigative reporter/joumalisUauthor, fell victim to a racketeering gang in

2009, after interviewing Kim Picazio, Michael Picazio, William Staubs, Rev. Richard
Grund, Wayanne Kruger, and several others regarding the kidnapping of Haleigh Ann-
Marie Cummings, and murder of Caylee Marie Anthony.
During the aforementioned interviews, Plaintifflearned intricate details about abiofuel

company called Alternative Biofuels Technologies Inc (ABT).
ABT was a biofuel company incorporated on October 14,2008, by Richard P. Greene

and Michael J. Picazio SEE EXHIBIT I. Scott W. Rothstein, a Fort Lauderdale attorney
was a fifty-percent partner in ABT. At that time in 2009, Scott Rothstein was already
under investigation by federal authorities for racketeering.
On December 1,2009, Scott Rothstein, former managing shareholder, chairman, and

chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm, Fort
Lauderdale, turned himself in to authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges
related to the Racketeer Influenced and ComrptOrganrzations Act (RICO). SEE
EXHIBIT J
Rothstein subsequently cooperated with the Government; he pled guilty to five federal
crimes on January 27 ,2010. On June 9,2010, Rothstein received a 5O-year prison
sentence after a hearing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale. SEE EXHIBIT K
RICO is ALREADY IN PLACE per the active federal investigation, and subsequent
prosecution and guilty plea of Scott Rothstein, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY
In the early summer of 2009, Scott Rothstein's business partner, Kim Picazio, contacted
the East Grand Forks Police Department to complain about Plaintiff.
Plaintiffhad leamed very sensitive information about the Haleigh Cummings

kidnapping; Caylee Anthonymurder; and ABT.
At the time Kim Picazio and her colleagues began to contact the East Grand Forks Police
Department (EGFPD), several EGF city officials were actively engaged in their own
criminal enterprise that would later become known as 'Boardwalk Enterprises'.
Boardwalk Enterprises LLP was, in sum and substance, a money laundering scheme
erected and operated by govemment officials in the highly lucrative environment of the
river cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesot4 after the
catastrophic flood of 1997 , as govemment flood relief dollars became available.
In July of 2009, the EGFPD learned from Kim Picazio's media consirltant Art Harris, that
Plaintiffwas assisting the Jacksonville FBI with information regarding the kidnapping of
Haleigh Cummings. SEE EXHIBIT D of PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT. After learning that the FBI was working with Plaintifi the EGFPD did
not contact the FBI, bu! rather, contacted the Polk County Attorney's office to see if there
was a charge that could be brought against Plaintiff.
Both the Florida racketeering enterprise, and the Minnesota racketeering enterprise,
sought to avoid FBI attention being drawn to their respective criminal enterprises, and
began to work together toward their common cause of destroying Plaintiff's publication
and reputation; with a long-term goal of putting Plaintiffin state prison.
The violations visited upon Plaintiffaffected interstate commerce, whereby the

international sale of legally published documentary material about a child kidnapping,
murder, child sex hafficking, human hafficking, drug trafficking, and child pornography,
entitled "In Re: Haleigh Cummings (the shocking truth revealed)" was illegally hindered
and halted per the RICO violations of the actors.
Facts and circumstances indicate a great deal of evidence regarding RICO violations are
being actively hidden by the deliberate illegal acts of Defendant City and Defendant
Galstad. In August of 2014, the Grand Forks Herald reported that Attorney Mark
Anfinson, an industry expert, stated the City had violated the Minnesota open meeting
law regarding 'Boardwalk Enterprises'. SEE EXHIBIT'L
Facts and circum'stances strongly suggest that during an official (closed door) meeting,
held at the private office of Ronald Galstad, on May 7,2013, held to discuss a $510,000
loan to EGF that had gone unpaid for ten years:
. Defendant Galstad was present

. EGF CityAdministrator David Murphywas present
. EGF City officials were present
r Representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises LLP were present
. Defendant Galstad was the attomey for the City of East Grand Forks
. Defendant Galstad was the attorney for Boardwalk Enterprises
. Defendant Galstad was a member of the Boardwalk Enterprises ownership goup
Defendant City refused PlaintifPs records request on this matter and violated Minnesota
open meeting law.
Subsequent to the commencement of this federal complaint, the Grand Forks Herald
reported that industry expert, Attomey Mark Anfinson, stated the City clearly violated the
Minnesota open meeting law during a meeting with representatives of Boardwalk
Enterprises.
Defendant City's illegal actions taken to cover up the aforementioned facts, provide clear
and convincing evidence that Defendant Galstad has acted an as agent of Defendant City
at all times when he was violating Plaintiff s constitutional rights to protect a criminal
enterprise.
The Boardwalk Enterprises annual loan payments of $30,000 were supposed to begin in
2003,but the payments were never made.
The dates are significant.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants, including Defendant Galstad, began violating PlaintifPs

constitutional rights in 2009.
The statute of limitations on the money laundering scheme associated with Boardwalk
Enterprises was to run out in the fall of 2014
Defendant ran afoul of Defendant right in the middle of the racketeering scherne.
Powerful and convincing evidence exists that Defendant City and Defendant Galstad is
involved in the Boardwalk money laundering scheme, and sought to protect the criminal
enterprise from exposure through a 'divorce court scheme' that began with a domestic
violence protection order from the State of Florida.
As is set forth in PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, the RICO violations

effectively began in 2009, continued through 2014, thus establishing a clear pattern and
practice.
SCOTT W. ROTIISTEIN _ TIIE LARGEST PONZI SCIIEME IN TIIE IIISTORY

OF THE STATE OF F'LORIDA - $1.4 BILLION
On Deiemb er I,2009, Scott W. Rothstein, former managing shareholder, chairman, and

chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler ldw firm, Fort (
Lauderdale, turned himself in to authorities and was subsequently anested on charges

related to the Racketeer Influenced and ComrptOrganizations Act (RICO).
Rothstein subsequently cooperated with the Government; he pled guilty to five federal
crimes on January 27,2010. On June 9,2010, Rothstein received a 5O-year prison
sentence after a hearing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.
ASSETS SEZED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
Listed amongst the assets seized from Scott Rothstein by federal authorities during the
RICO investigation and subsequent prosecution, was a biofuel company - ABT.
ALTERNATTVE BIOFUELS TECHNOLOGIES INC
On October 14,2Xl8,Articles of Incorporation for Alternative Biofuels Technologies

Inc. (ABT) were filed with the State of Florida. The incorporator was Richard P. Greene,
Fort Lauderdale; the President was Michael J. Picazio, Fort Lauderdale. SEE EXHIBIT I
Both Michael Picazio and Richard Greene have felony criminal convictions.
Richard Greene was convicted of securities fraud in 2003. In January of 2014, Greene
was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and sentenced to 18 months in
federal prison. SEE EXHIBIT M
+ MICHAELPTCAZTO (FELON) SEE EXHIBIT B

In 1995, Michael Picazio was indicted by federal prosecutors in Ohio for

stealing boats from a marina with the intent of selling them out of state -
as part of a theft ring.
Michael Picazio is a convicted felon.
RICHARD GREENE (FELON) SEE EXHIBIT M
o Richard Greene is an attorney, whom the State of Florida admitted to

practice law in 1985. In 2003, Green was convicted of securities fraud in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and. as
a result, was disbarred eflective April 2004.
.
o On January 15,2014,a judgment of conviction was entered against
Greene in United States v. Greene, et al, No. l3-cr-60203-KAM, in the
United States District Court for the Southem District of Florida, finding
him guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Greene pled guilty
to participating in a scheme to manipulate the price and trading volume of
VDO-PH International, Inc.
o 3. As a r"irtt of this conviction, Greene was sentenced to l8 months

imprisonment in a federal penitentiary.
JOHN BURGUN
On January 29,2009, John Burgun, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, replaced Michael Picazio as
president of ABT.
Upon information and belief John Burgun replaced Michael Picazio as president of ABT
because John Burgun is of good repute and has a clean record. The objective was to move
Michael Picazio from the position of front-manbecause of his felonybackground.
John Burgun and his wife, Maria Burgun, subsequentlyborrowed/invested approximately

$350,000 to Michael Picazio in advance of growing the biofuel company.
I On May 6, 2010, shortly after Scott Rothstein pled guilty, John Burgun
signed Article of Dissolution for ABT. SEE EXHIBIT I
+ KM PICAZIO
Kim Picazio, civil divorce attorney, Fort Lauderdale, is the wife of Michael Picazio.
During a recorded telephone conversation in approximately March of 2009, the voice of

Kim Picazio can be heard to talking to Jeremiah Regan (address unknown).
fntNSCRpTION OF CALL IN PART (hanscribed by Timothy Charles Holmseth)
Regan: And I said I want to maintain professional relationships with all of you - I
didn't...
Kim Picazio: I said that too - I said that too - the only reason why you wanted to do that
is because you wanted to work for my husband's Company which by the way is not fbke
he does have the Company there are scientists there's a patent pending if you'd like me to
fax to you the _ agreement and everything else and the five-hundred and fifty grand
that he just got and the other two-hundred and thirty-one million that he's been promised
- none of that's fake I don't know who's saying its fake
Regan: Yeah I know the Company is real but right now...I didn't say it's fake - but now
you're telling me he he he and when you told me the first time it was you you you
Kim Picazio: I set this whole thing up - I found the contacts - I went and sat his ass at a
dinner party and did the whole thing - I have been doing - dealing with the lawyers - it is
mine - my taby - that's how I feel in my mind -
Regan: Yeah and you told me everything was yours - you told
Kim Picazio: Listen my husband has put maybe five grand in the bank - in our bank
account in I don't know how long - you can ask Bill (William Staubs)
Kim Picazio assured Jeremiah Regan the biofuel company was hers. She assured
Jeremiah Regan she had just received $550,000 and had been promised $231 Million.
+ WILLIAM STAUBS
William Staubs is a private investigator licensed with the State of Florida. He is also a
licensed bail bondsman. He owns Case Closed Inc, Weston, Florida.
Kim Picazio, Michael Picazio, and William Staubs are close family friends of many
years. Kim Picazio retained the PI services of William Staubs in 2009 when she
represented Crystal Sheffield, the mother of a missing child named Haleigh Ann-Marie
Cummings
William Staubs told Plaintiffthat Scott Rothstein was a fifty percent parbrer with Michael
Picazio in the biofuel company, ABT.
In an interview conducted by Plaintiffwith William Staubs on a date believed to be May

7 5, 2009, William Staubs said:
"So Kim calls her husband and says this lawyerfirm down here which is umm
Rothstein's or whatever - huge lawyerf.rm they got over 75 lawyers some of the baddest
bilL-asses in the world - tryW to convince her husband that she needs a lawyer will
-
you please call down there and get me somebody because werefixing to go to war with
I
ourfriend Bill Staubs - and he goes whatT - so I get wind of that I call him and says
'Mike for the final time that you're my friend let me tell you what's going on she
-
contacted that attorney to get mefired and tell _that
attorney wanted him to issue me
a letter since I had no client now - I needed to leave town- said Mike she is so sick on
something that she's trying to force my client which she doesn't know who my client -
who is your client? Ruby is my client - I can't save your wife she's already fucked up bad
- and now she's called you and said that attorney said he wanted every blog spot I ever
blogged on - I don't blog I made two comrnents out there that _my name and that's
what slte's depending on and said that her client had dirty hands I didn't pick her client
out to have dirty hands I said nobody has clean hands so Mike she'sflipping everything
around this attorney did not contact her she contacted this attorney now she's telling you
that this attorney said to lawyer up - nobody told her to lawyer ui - h"r"'s what shi;s
doing brother - she wants you to go to that Rothstein which is your buddy and if I stand
corrected he is also your partner in this oil business = see Mike has developed a way to
take that raw shit and stuff- that thick as lardy grease that comes out of these sewers and
all of these grease traps and everything - not yellow grease cuz it don't work there's too
much sulphur in that once they purify that around - cost too much to make its all based'
-
onfeedstock and Mike lvtows feedstock inside out he's a very smart guy - so there's a
professorfrom the University of Kansas that has developed a catalyst that will rnelt down
this waxy thick nasty lard looking shit and return 98ok pure petroleum I mean I'm talking
about pure dieselfuel - crystal clear - low this low that - so now there in the process of
building a test plantfor one-hundred million dollars or some shit - crazy numbers- they
got people that are throwing that money in there these Rothstein's are biggest bad ass
-
attornqts of the world and they own the boat Governor Charlie Crist isftxing to come
-
out on it major news when it pops off- are right that's what he's sitting on afucking gold
mine - he.'s been shoveling shit all these ten years...
The following is from a hanscription from an interview conducted by Plaintiff with

William Staubs on a dbte believed to be May 16,2009: " ...isn't [Scott RothsteinJ the guy
that has 50%o ownership in this biofuels technologies with you? " Staubs recounted saylng
to Michael Picazio. "Yeah, " Staubs said, recounting Michael Picazio's answer.
+ PEDRO DIJOLS - ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
In the spring of 2009 a media relationship began between Plaintiffand Kim Picazio
regarding their shared interest in the kidnapping case of Haleigh Cummings.
In the spring of 2009 a media relationship began between Plaintiff and William Staubs
regarding the kidnapping of Haleigh Cummings and the murder of Caylee Marie
Anthony.
During interviews between Plaintiff and William Staubs; William Staubs told Plaintiff
details about a biofuel company that involved Scott Rothstein and (then acting) Florida
Governor Charlie Crist. Staubs described a back-door deal with the government that was
in place, through Scott Rothstein and Govemor Crist, which involved Michael and Kim
Picazio, which was going to bring a wind-fallin the hundreds of millions of dollars.
,
Staubs told Plaintiffthat Kim Picazio had talked to Govemor Crist.
In the summer of 2009, Kim Picazio became anry at Pl;intiff. Kim Picazio sent Plaintiff
an email advising that her attomey was Pedro Dijols, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.
Plaintiffthen emailed Attorney Dijols to confirm Kim Picazio's claim, and Dijol's did in
fact respond to confirm he was Kjm Picazio's attorney.
In the summer of 2009, Kim Picazio telephoned the East Grand Forks Police Deparbnent
(EGFPD). Detective Rodney Hajicek subsequently telephoned Plaintiffand advised that
Kim Picazio, and others she knew, didn't want him to contact them or write anymore
content about them.
In February of 2010, Plaintiffwas interviewed by Special Agent Andrew James

Eilermann, Minneapolis FBI. The interview, according to Eilermann, was requested by
the Jacksonville FBI.
In January of 2011, Plaintiff published a book entitled "In Re: Haleigh Cummings (the
shocking truth revealed)". The book sold very well and was featured nationally on
television.
In the fall of 2011, Plaintiffreported to Detective Rodney Hajicek that William Staubs
had advised Plaintiffthat Michael Picazio, with Kim Picazio present, had been discussing
how he planned to murder Plaintiffwith a Mini-l4 Assault Carbine rifle. SEE EXHIBIT
F of PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
Maria Burgun, wife of John Burgun (former president of ABT), confirmed that Michael
Picazio told her he was going to shoot Plaintiffthrough the door of his home.
In the fall of 2011, Kim Picazio petitioned a Broward County divorce court for an
Injunction for Protection Againsi Repeat Violence against Plaintiff. The purpose of the
fraudulent domestic violence injunction was to force-remove all published material by
Plaintiffabout the illegal activities of Kim Picazio and all the other actors.
William Staubs told Plaintiffthat Michael Picazio's "Mob boys" were going to kill
Plaintiffif Plaintiffappeared in Fort Lauderdale to defend himself against the fraudulent
allegations made against Plaintiffby Kim Picazio in the Broward County divorce court.
Defendant Hajicek, appraised of all the death threats and witresses statements, took no
action whatsoever regarding the same.
As is set forth in PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, multiple actors

executed separate disciplined steps as the actors methodically violated Plaintiff s
constitutional rights in effort to frame Plaintiffand have Plaintiffwrongfully convicted of

a crime.
The Minnesota's court's Order, which Plaintiffwas coerced into acbeptinj, set forth an
agreement that included an agreement that Plaintiffremove all content written and
published about Michael Picazio.
Defendant City and Defendant Galstad have committed multiple requisite acts and is in
violation of RICO.
2014 PROTECTWE ORDER
On Septemb er 17 , 2014, Honorable Tamara Yon, GRANTED a PROTECTTVE ORDER

to Plaintiff. SEE E)GIIBIT N
The Protective Order forbid PlaintifPs child's mother, Rhonda Callahan, and/orher
attorney of record (Michael Mattocks - Charlson &Jorgenson) from copying,
disseminating, or in any other way misusing PlaintifPs sensitive financial information.
The Protective Order was not the first time Plaintiffrequested relief from the Minnesota
State Distict Court. In2072, a Harassment/Restraining order was set forth that protected
Plaintifffrom being forced to turn over medical files to Rhonda Callahan, which would
invariably appear on the Web via an x-rated website called www.radionewz.net.
PlaintifPs arguments at the September 17 ,2014, hearing consisted of email proof that
Rhonda Callahan, his child's mother, and Charlson-Jorgenson law office, had
communicated with Kim Picazio, Art Harris, and William Staubs and provided
information and/or documents to the aforernentioned.
Attorney Michael Mattocks also admitted that he had discussed Plaintiffwith Ronald
Galstad before a Family Court hearing in20l2, and then brought up content from that
conversation (Galstad told Mattocks that Plaintiffwas in touble with the law) to the
Judge during a hearing, whereupon Mattocks was attempting to have PlaintifPs regular
parenting-time stopped.
Exhibitive evidence showed that vile, disgusting, x-rated, repulsive, sexually assaultive,
defamatory and slanderous, postings had been published on a website called
www.radionewz.net for years.
Evidence also proved that Kim Picazio was the attomey for the cyber-stalker website
www.radionewz.net.
Thus -,a PROTECTIVE ORDER was issued. SEE DC{IBIT N.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT has met the standards of applicable

rules.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT sets forth a very coherent,

understandable, set of facts.
Plaintiff has satisfied the rules ofprocedure and presented a legitimate actionable claim.
Respectfully submitted,

320l7fn StreetN.W.
Unit # l7
s6727
218.773.1299
218.230.1597 (cell)
\^-bW
Pro Se
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney

District of Minnesota
600 United States Courthouse Telephone.· (6 12) 664-5600

300 South Fourth Street Fax. (61 2) 664-578 7
Minneapolis, MN 554 15
September 10, 2014
Timoth~ Holmseth
320 1i Street NW, # 17
East Grand Forks, MN 56721
Re : Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks, et al.,

Civil No. 14-cv-2970 (DWF/LIB)
Dear Mr. Holmseth:
We have been notified that you have filed a complaint in the above-entitled matter. We
will file a notice of appearance on behalf of the United States/Federal Defendant. However,
filing a notice of appearance is not an acceptance of service, nor is it a waiver of defenses.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs how to serve the United States, its
agencies and employees. Until such time as you properly complete service, in accord with Rule
4, it is our position that the case cannot proceed against any Federal Defendant.
Sincerely,
ANDREW M. LUGER
United States Attorney
s/ Ana H. Voss
BY: Ana H. Voss

Assistant U.S . Attorney
Attorney ID Number 483656DC

Timothy Charles Holmseth, Court File No. 14-cv-2970 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,
v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
City of East Grand Forks, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon
Defendants City of East Grand Forks (“Defendant City”), James Richter, Michael Hedlund,
David Murphy, Rodney Hajicek, and Aeisso Schrage’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary
Judgment, [Docket No. 13]; Defendants Barb Erdman and Michael Norland’s Motion to
Dismiss, [Docket No. 23]; Defendant Ronald Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 32], and
Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 54]; Defendant
Michael LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 61]; Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive
Relief, [Docket No. 72]; and Defendant Jeanette Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for
Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 84]. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for a report and recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.1. The Court held motions hearings on December 17, 2014 and February 11, 2015.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Defendants City, Richter,
Hedlund, Murphy, Hajicek, and Schrage’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment,
[Docket No. 13], be GRANTED; Defendants Erdman and Norland’s Motion to Dismiss,
[Docket No. 23], be GRANTED; Defendant Galstad’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for
Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 54], be GRANTED; Defendant Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss,
[Docket No. 32] be DENIED as moot; Defendant LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No.
61], be GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 72] be DENIED; and
Defendant Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 84], be
GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case arises from three separate courses of events. The first course
of events concerns the actions of members of the East Grand Forks Police Department
(“EGFPD”) while investigating complaints made about Plaintiff Timothy Holmseth (“Plaintiff”)
between 2009 and 2011 regarding postings he was publishing to the internet that ultimately
resulted in a protective order being issued against Plaintiff in Florida. The second course of
events concerns the actions of members of the EGFPD, members of the Polk County Sheriff’s
Department, and two attorneys during the 2011 and 2012 investigation and prosecution of
Plaintiff for violations of the Florida protective order. The third course of events concerns a staff
member of the East Grand Forks Economic Development and Housing Authority (“EDHA”)
being ordered to shred an address verification form required for Plaintiff to obtain security
clearance to work for a company providing janitorial services to the National Weather Service
(“NWS”), and complaints made about Plaintiff while so employed that ultimately resulted in his
employment being terminated on July 11, 2014.
On July 22, 2014, Plaintiff submitted his initial pro se Complaint, [Docket No. 1],
alleging that the named Defendants had conspired with non-party individuals and each other to
violate a number of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], that is the operative complaint.1
1
It appears that when Plaintiff formatted his Amended Complaint, he inserted into the body of the Amended
Complaint portions of the text of two letters that he may have intended to include as exhibits. (See Amended
2
On September 12, 2014, Defendants City, Richter, Hedlund, Murphy, Hajicek, and
Schrage (collectively, the “City Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary
Judgment, [Docket No. 13]. On September 18, 2014, Defendants Erdman and Norland
(collectively, the “County Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 23]. On
September 24, 2014, Defendant Galstad filed a Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 32]. On October
14, 2014, Defendant Galstad filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary
Judgment, [Docket No. 54]. On October 21, 2014, Defendant LaCoursiere filed a Motion to
Dismiss, [Docket No. 61]. As initially scheduled, oral arguments in the above-listed motions
were to be heard on two separate dates. On October 30, 2014, the Court issued an Order
consolidating the motions hearings regarding the four above-listed motions and rescheduling the
single hearing for December 17, 2014. (Order, [Docket No. 71]).
On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 72].
On November 17, 2014, the Court issued an order scheduling that motion to be heard at the
motions hearing previously scheduled for December 17, 2014. (Order, [Docket No. 74]).
On December 3, 2014, Defendant Ringuette filed her Motion to Dismiss and/or for
Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 84].
Complaint, [Docket No. 11], pp. 26-27). The inserted portion of the text of the first letter was to the Clerk of Court,
asking that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be accepted. (Id. at 27). It appears Clerk of Court concluded the text of
that letter to be the end of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and, as a result, docketed the Amended Complaint in two
separate entries. The first portion of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was docketed under the heading “Amended
Complaint” and appears to end on page 26. (Id.). The second portion of the Amended Complaint, which contains
additional allegations, his list of claims, and prayer for relief, appears beginning at page three and ending at page
twelve of Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint. (See Id., Ex. A, pp. 3-12). This error in the form of the filing is
immaterial to the Court’s consideration of the motions at issue. When considering motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, a court may consider the pleadings themselves, materials embraced by pleadings, exhibits attached to
the pleadings, and matters of public record. Illig v. Union Elec. Co., 652 F.3d 971, 976 (8th Cir. 2011); see also
Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient
facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, . . . to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).
3
On February 11, 2015, while the motions heard at the December 17, 2014, hearing were
still under advisement, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant Ringuette’s motion. The
Court stated orally on the record that it would address all of the above-listed motions in a single
report and recommendation.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In addressing a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, “we look only to the facts alleged in the complaint
and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Riley v. St. Louis County of
Mo., 153 F.3d 627, 629 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Double D Spotting Serv., Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc.,
136 F.3d 554, 556 (8th Cir. 1998)). “[T]he court must assume that all facts alleged in the
plaintiff’s complaint are true, and must liberally construe those allegations.” Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party. See Maki v. Allete, Inc., 383 F.3d 740, 742 (8th Cir. 2004).
As discussed above, “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged,” but in contrast, “[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are
‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
4
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-67). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 664.
“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused
from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.” Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528
(8th Cir. 1984).
III. FACTS COMMON TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS2
The overwhelming majority of the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
concern a Florida attorney named Kim Picazio and Picazio’s associates, whom Plaintiff
conclusorily alleges conspired together and with Defendants to threaten him and violate his civil
rights. (See gen., Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11]). Neither Picazio nor her associates are
parties to this case.
With regards to the named Defendants in this case, Plaintiff has alleged the following
specific facts:3
2
As discussed in more detail in the sections below, the Court recommends that all of the pending Rule 12 motions to
dismiss be granted and does not reach the issue of whether the individual defendants who have moved for Rule 56
summary judgment are entitled to it. Accordingly, the statement of facts in this section is limited to those contained
in the materials the Court may consider in ruling on the motions to dismiss without converting them to Rule 56
motions for summary judgment. See, Illig, 652 F.3d at 976 (listing the evidence a court may consider when ruling on
a motion to dismiss without converting the motion to one for summary judgment).
The Court will address the facts that are material to Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief in a separate section.
The Court also notes that, after the February 11, 2015, motion hearing, Plaintiff has twice submitted numerous
additional exhibits that he has asked the Court to review when ruling on the pending motions. In doing so, Plaintiff
is, in essence, seeking to amend his complaint to add new factual allegations without bringing a motion seeking or
being granted leave to do so. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is not excused from following the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Burgs, 745 F.2d 528. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court reviewed the improperly
submitted exhibits. There is nothing in those exhibits which pertains to Plaintiff’s claims against the named
Defendants.
3
Many of Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory statements unsupported by specific facts. The Court is not required to
accept such conclusory unsupported statements as true even under the generous standard of viewing the evidence in
the context of a motion to dismiss. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of
his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). Plaintiff also frequently alleges as fact numerous inferences that he wants the Court to draw from his
allegations. The Court may only draw such inferences where warranted and supported by specific facts. Silver v.
5
Plaintiff has a self-professed background in newspaper journalism and has, since 2008,
operated a blogging website as part of a freelance writing business. (See, Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 18-22). In
2009, Picazio and her Florida associates began to file complaints with the EGFPD about the
things that Plaintiff was posting about them on his website. (See, Id. at 4-5, 7-11, ¶¶ 28, 30-32,
34-37, 40-42, 45-46). Defendant Lieutenant Detective Rodney Hajicek recorded complaints
made against Plaintiff by Picazio and her associates. (Id. at 7, ¶ 28). Defendant Hajicek stated
that he received numerous reports against Plaintiff but noted that all were civil or non-criminal in
nature. (Id.).
On June 2, 2009, Defendant Hajicek reported that he had received a call from Picazio,
who complained about emails she was receiving from Plaintiff and things Plaintiff was writing
about her on his website that were not true. (Id. at 8, ¶ 34). On June 18, 2009, Defendant Hajicek
reported receiving a call about Plaintiff from one of Picazio’s associates, asking Defendant
Hajicek to tell Plaintiff that she did not want Plaintiff writing things about her company on his
website. (Id. at 8, ¶ 35). Defendant Hajicek telephoned and spoke to Plaintiff on behalf of
Picazio’s associate’s company. (Id. at 9, ¶ 36). Defendant Hajicek reported that he called
Plaintiff and warned him that he would be advising individuals to seek harassment orders against
Plaintiff in the future if there appeared to be a basis for it. (Id.). On July 20, 2009, Defendant
Hajicek reported having received multiple complaints about Plaintiff from Picazio and her
associates. (Id. at 9, ¶ 37). Defendant Hajicek also reported that he had printed emails he had
received from Picazio and her associates that concerned Plaintiff and provided them to the
H&R Block, Inc., 105 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir. 1997) (“In considering a motion to dismiss, courts accept the
plaintiff's factual allegations as true, but reject conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences.” (citing In
re Syntex Corp. Securities Lit., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996)). The Court’s recitation of the facts reflects the
specific factual allegations the Court must accept as true along with the reasonable inferences warranted by those
specific facts.
6
county attorney to review to determine if any other action should be taken. (Id. at 10, ¶ 43).
Defendant Hajicek did not include his responses to those emails in the collection of printouts.
(Id. at 10, ¶ 44).
On July 7, 2009, a non-party EGFPD officer received a call from an individual who had
given information to one of Picazio’s associates. (Id. at 9-10, ¶ 38). The caller was concerned
about how Plaintiff would react if Picazio’s associate mentioned the caller’s name. (Id.). A copy
of the report was provided to Plaintiff. (Id. at 10, ¶ 39). The report listed Plaintiff’s name but the
caller’s name had been redacted. (Id.). When Plaintiff asked Defendant East Grand Forks Police
Chief Michael Hedlund to provide him with the caller’s name, Defendant Hedlund refused,
stating it was for the safety of the caller. (Id.).
On September 8, 2011, Picazio petitioned a Florida court for a protective order against
Plaintiff. (Id. at 12-13, ¶ 52). Plaintiff submitted three requests to the EGFPD for copies of
police records that he believed would support a defense against the allegations in Picazio’s
petition. (Id. at 13, ¶53). Plaintiff followed the procedure for filling out the request forms and
submitted them to the EGFPD duty officer. (Id.). Defendant Hajicek refused to provide Plaintiff
with the requested records, in violation of the EGFPD’s posted policy. (Id.).
Plaintiff reported to Defendant Hajicek that he had been told that Picazio’s associates
were likely to murder him if he chose to attend the hearing on the petition for the protective
order. (Id. at 13, ¶ 54). Plaintiff also provided Defendant Hajicek with an affidavit from one of
Picazio’s associates averring that Picazio’s husband had made threatening comments about
Plaintiff. (Id.). Defendant Hajicek did not record Plaintiff’s reports. (Id.).
The Florida court granted Picazio’s petition for the protective order, which was issued on
September 19, 2011. (Id. at 13, ¶ 55). The Florida protective order required that Plaintiff remove
7
all references he had made about Picazio on the internet. (Id.). The Florida protective order also
required Plaintiff to surrender his firearms, ammunition, and associated permits. (Id.).
On November 21, 2011, Plaintiff was arrested on allegations that he had violated the
Florida protective order by publishing comments about Picazio on the internet. (Id. at 14, ¶ 56).
The arrest warrant was signed by Defendant Hajicek and Defendant East Grand Forks City
Attorney Ronald Galstad. (Id. at 14, ¶ 57). Plaintiff was released pending trial on the condition
that he not publish anything on the internet. (Id. at 14, ¶ 58).
On April 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint regarding the EGFPD’s refusal to provide
him with copies of the requested police records. (Id. at 14, ¶ 59; Id., Ex. H). Pursuant to that
complaint, Defendant Hedlund provided Plaintiff with copies of the requested records sometime
thereafter. (See Id. at 14, ¶ 59).
Defendant Minnesota Public Defender Michael LaCoursiere was appointed to defend
Plaintiff on the charges that he had violated the Florida protective order. (See, Id. at 14-15, ¶ 60).
A trial on the charges was set for October 29, 2012. (See, Id.). Defendant LaCoursiere told
Plaintiff that he believed Plaintiff had a strong case. (Id.). On October 29, 2012, Defendant
LaCoursiere told Plaintiff that Defendant Galstad wanted Plaintiff to accept a plea deal, pursuant
to which Plaintiff would enter an Alford plea. (Id.). When Plaintiff initially refused, Defendant
LaCoursiere told him that Defendant Galstad intended to offer at trial the testimony of two
officers who would lie and that the police had a plan to put Plaintiff in a state prison. (Id. at 15, ¶
60). Defendant LaCoursiere also told Plaintiff that, if he was put in prison, Plaintiff would not be
able to see his children, and that nobody would believe him about what had really happened to a
kidnapped child in Florida about whom Plaintiff had written. (Id.). Defendant LaCoursiere did
not provide straight answers to Plaintiff’s questions about whether Picazio would be present for
8
his trial.4 (Id. at ¶ 61). Plaintiff began to believe that Defendant LaCoursiere was part of a
conspiracy and decided to accept the offered plea deal. (Id. at ¶ 62).
At the hearing, Plaintiff entered an Alford plea. (See, Id.). Although Defendant
LaCoursiere’s appointment as Plaintiff’s public defender would typically have terminated after
the plea hearing, Defendant Galstad asked the presiding court, the Honorable Tamara Yon,
District Court Judge for the Ninth District of the State of Minnesota, to allow Defendant
LaCoursiere to continue representing Plaintiff until a compliance review hearing that had been
scheduled for December 12, 2012, could be held. (Id. at ¶¶, 63-64). Judge Yon sentenced
Plaintiff on October 29, 2012. (See, Id., Ex. J. (referring to sentencing order entered on October
29, 2012)).
On November 7, 2012, Defendant Hajicek received a call from Picazio’s husband
complaining about statements Plaintiff had again posted online. (Amended Complaint, [Docket
No. 11], at 18, ¶ 77).
On December 10, 2012, Defendant Hajicek delivered to Defendant LaCoursiere notice of
a motion that Defendant Galstad had filed on December 6, 2012,5 requesting that the state court
4
Plaintiff asks the Court to infer that Defendant Galstad falsely told the presiding court, the Honorable Tamara Yon,
District Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, that Picazio was present to testify at
the trial set for October 29, 2012. (See Id. at 15). In support, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Galstad told Judge Yon
at the hearing on October 29, 2012, that he had Picazio’s testimony about the Florida protective order, that the State
did not ask Judge Yon to order Plaintiff pay the costs of plane tickets for Picazio, that Defendant City had not paid
for plane tickets for Picazio, and that Defendant Galstad later asked Judge Yon to allow Picazio to testify via video-
conferencing at a hearing in December of 2012. (Id. at 16, ¶ 66-69). Those specific facts do not warrant the
inference that Defendant Galstad falsely told Judge Yon that Picazio was present to testify at the trial scheduled for
October 29, 2012.
5
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint states that Defendant Galstad filed the motion on October 6, 2012. (Id. at 16, ¶ 71).
However, Plaintiff’s other allegations indicate that the motion concerned alleged violations of the Florida protective
order and the conditions of Plaintiff’s sentence that were to be considered as part of the compliance hearing on
December 12, 2012, and that, as a strategic decision, Defendant Galstad delayed filing the motion until it was too
close to the compliance hearing for Plaintiff to bring himself in compliance with the terms of the sentence. (See, Id.
at ¶¶ 77-72). In light of Plaintiff’s other allegations, the Court finds that the reference to October 6, 2012, was a
typo, and that the motion was filed on December 6, 2012.
9
find that Plaintiff had committed three violations of the Florida protective order and Plaintiff’s
sentence. (Id. at 16-17, ¶¶ 71-73). Plaintiff received notice of the motion by mail the next day
and sent an email to Defendant LaCoursiere, who had intentionally not notified Plaintiff that he
had received notice of the motion. (Id. at 16-17, ¶¶ 71, 75).
At the December 12, 2012, compliance hearing, Defendant Galstad asked Judge Yon to
allow him to present evidence at that hearing. (Id. at 17, ¶ 73). Judge Yon refused the request and
scheduled an evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged violations. (See, Id. at 76). At some point
thereafter, Judge Yon allowed Plaintiff to withdraw the Alford plea that he had entered on
October 29, 2012, and Judge Yon appointed a different public defender to represent Plaintiff.6
(December 17, 2014, Motions Hearing, Digital Recording at 12:27 p.m.). Plaintiff, advised by
new counsel, ultimately entered a second Alford plea pursuant to a plea agreement. (Id.). After
the compliance hearing, Plaintiff’s hard drive was seized pursuant to a Minnesota state court
search warrant as part of the investigation into whether Plaintiff had violated the conditions of
the Florida protective order and his sentence. (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], 19, ¶ 84).
Between the date of the seizure and the time Plaintiff entered his second Alford plea, Defendant
Galstad conditioned the return of Plaintiff’s hard drive on Plaintiff entering the second Alford
plea, withdrawing a complaint he had made against Defendant Galstad, and removing articles
that Plaintiff had published on the internet that were critical of local officials. (Id., 21, ¶ 97).
On December 13, 2014, Defendant East Grand Forks Police Officer Aeisso Schrage,
applied for a warrant to search Plaintiff’s residence for evidence, including documents contained
on a computer hard drive, that Plaintiff had violated the Florida protective order and the terms of
6
Plaintiff admitted at oral argument at the motions hearing on December 17, 2014, that Judge Yon had allowed him
to withdraw his initial plea, had appointed Plaintiff a different public defender, and later accepted Plaintiff’s second
Alford plea, which Plaintiff entered after being advised by new counsel. (December 17, 2014, Motions Hearing,
Digital Recording at 12:27 p m.). The Court may consider Plaintiff’s admissions at the motion hearing as a matter
of public record. See Illig, 652 F.3d at 976.
10
his sentence. (See, Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], Ex. J, 1). The Honorable Jeff Remick,
District Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, concluded that
probable cause existed to believe that the identified evidence could be found in Plaintiff’s
residence. (Id. at 2). Judge Remick issued a warrant to search Defendant’s residence for the
evidence and seize it. (Id.).
On December 14, 2014, Plaintiff spoke to Defendant LaCoursiere about his case over the
telephone. (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], at 18, ¶ 83). During the conversation,
Defendant Schrage and three other EGFPD officers stood in the hallway at the door to Plaintiff’s
apartment and listened to the conversation. (Id.). Shortly after the conversation ended, the four
officers entered Plaintiff’s apartment to execute the search warrant. (Id. at 19, ¶ 84). The officers
seized Plaintiff’s hard drive pursuant to the warrant. (Id.). Between the initial seizure of the hard
drive and its return to Plaintiff, the officers kept incomplete records of who had possession of the
hard drive and who had accessed it. (Id. at 19, 22, ¶¶ 86, 101).
On January 4, 2012, Defendant Galstad falsely told Judge Yon that the Minnesota
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“MNBCA”) would perform a forensic search of the contents
of the hard drive, but needed a second search warrant before it would do so. (Id. at 19-20, ¶¶ 89-
90). The MNBCA had not received a request to do a forensic search of Plaintiff’s hard drive. (Id.
at 20, ¶¶ 92-93). Defendant Schrage had provided the hard drive to Defendant Polk County
Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Norland on December 15, 2012. (Id. at 19, ¶ 86). Defendant Norland
performed a forensic search of the contents of the hard drive pursuant to the search warrant. (Id.;
December 17, 2014, Motions Hearing, Digital Recording at 12:03 p.m.). In January, 2014,
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Norland with Defendant Polk County Sheriff Barb
Erdman. (See Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], at 20, ¶ 91). Defendant Erdman told
11
Plaintiff that she believed that Defendant Norland’s search of Plaintiff’s hard drive had been
legal. (Id.). Plaintiff received his hard drive back on April 26, 2013. (Id. at 21, ¶ 98). When
Plaintiff received the hard drive back, it worked only briefly. (Id.).
On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the EGFPD that Defendant Schrage
had misquoted Plaintiff when writing a police report about the execution of the search warrant.
(Id. at 22, ¶ 100). Defendant Hedlund investigated and notified Plaintiff that he had found the
complaint to be unfounded. (Id. at 22-23, ¶ 100-101).
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also makes a number of allegations about the East
Grand Forks EDHA, of which Defendant James Richter was the director. Plaintiff alleges that
the EDHA provided a loan to an entity that failed to make payments on it. (Id. at 4). Defendant
East Grand Forks City Administrator David Murphy reported that, on May 7, 2014, East Grand
Forks officials, including Defendant Richter, met with members of the borrowing entity at the
offices of Defendant Galstad. (Id.). On August 8, 2013, Plaintiff wrote an article on his website
suggesting that the IRS may audit Defendant City. (Id. at 23, ¶ 107). On December 8, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a report to the Minnesota State Auditor regarding Defendant City, requesting an
audit. (Id. at ¶ 108).
In January of 2014, Plaintiff took employment with Five Star Enterprises, a contractor
providing janitorial services for a National Weather Service (“NWS”) facility in Grand Forks,
North Dakota. (Id. at 22 ¶ 102). Part of Plaintiff’s contract with Five Star involved plans to
develop local business contacts for Five Star, which would lead to Five Star renting an office
storefront for Plaintiff to operate out of. (Id.). The other part of Plaintiff’s contract called for him
to work providing janitorial services at the NWS facility, which required that he obtain a security
clearance. (Id. at 22-23, ¶¶ 102, 109). As a step in obtaining his security clearance, Plaintiff
12
asked Karen Nelson, an EDHA employee with whom Plaintiff had contact as a result of
receiving housing assistance from Defendant City, to fill out a form verifying his address. (Id. at
¶ 111). Nelson later informed Plaintiff that Defendant Richter had become nervous about the
address verification form sent to Nelson and told her to shred it. (Id. at 23-24 ¶¶ 115, 117).
Nelson told Plaintiff that Defendant Richter had ordered her to shred the form because Defendant
Richter didn’t trust Nelson. (Id.). Nelson eventually submitted a duplicate verification form and
Plaintiff was granted a security clearance. (Id. at ¶ 121). When Plaintiff filed a complaint about
the document being shredded, Defendant Murphy investigated and later informed Plaintiff that
he had concluded that the form had been shredded in error. (Id. at 25, ¶ 124).
Defendant Ringuette is an administrative assistant at NWS, and was Plaintiff’s point of
contact for his janitorial work for Five Star at the NWS facility. (Id. at ¶ 110). Although Plaintiff
began working at the NWS facility in January of 2014, he was not allowed in secure areas at the
NWS facility by himself until he received his security clearance. (Id. at 23, ¶ 109). Plaintiff
eventually received his security clearance on May 8, 2014. (Id. at 24, ¶ 117). Defendant
Ringuette was notified that Plaintiff had been granted security clearance shortly thereafter but
intentionally waited as much as thirteen days to inform Plaintiff or his employer.7 (Id. at ¶¶ 121-
123).
Soon after Plaintiff began working as a janitor at the NWS, Defendant Ringuette began
making complaints about him to Plaintiff’s employer. (Id. at 23, ¶ 110). Defendant Ringuette
continued making such complaints for several months. (See Id. at 25, ¶¶ 124, 126-127). In
making one such complaint on May 21, 2014, Ringuette mentioned to Plaintiff’s employer that
7
Plaintiff’s allegations are ambiguous regarding the amount of time that Defendant Ringuette delayed in informing
Plaintiff that he had received his security clearance. He alleges that Defendant Ringuette eventually informed him
that he had received a security clearance sometime between May 8, 2014, - the day he was granted clearance- and
May 21, 2014. However, for the reasons discussed below, any ambiguity in this regard is immaterial.
13
Plaintiff had a website and that Plaintiff has had problems with the police. (Id. at 25, ¶ 124). On
July 11, 2014, Plaintiff’s employer, Five Star, informed him that Defendant Ringuette had
brought her complaints about Plaintiff to her superior at the NWS, who had in turn contacted
Plaintiff’s employer and said that if Plaintiff was not terminated, Five Star would not be
recommended for any federal contracts. (Id. at 26, ¶ 130). Plaintiff’s employer thereafter
terminated Plaintiff’s employment. (Id.).
On July 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present action against the Defendants in both their
individual and official capacities. (Complaint, [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff later filed an Amended
Complaint, [Docket No. 11], that is the operative complaint. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants
Galstad, Hajicek, LaCoursiere, Schrage, and City violated his rights to: 1) equal protection; 2) to
make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 3) to be free from retaliation for exercising
his First Amendment rights; 4) to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; 5) to be
free from malicious prosecution; 6) to trial by jury; 7) to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures under the Fourth Amendment; and 8) “to life, liberty, and property.” (Amended
Complaint, [Docket No. 11], Exhibit A, 4-9, ¶¶ 141-170). Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants
Norland and Erdman violated his rights to: 1) equal protection; 2) to be free of retaliation for
exercising his First Amendment rights; 3) to be free of malicious prosecution; 4) to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures; and, 5) to “life, liberty, and property.” (Id. at 6-9, ¶¶ 155-
170). Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants Richter, Murphy, and Ringuette had violated his
rights: 1) to be free of retaliation for exercising his rights to free speech and freedom of the press;
2) to make and enforce contracts; and 3) to “life, liberty, and property.” (Id. at 9-11, ¶¶ 171-185).
Plaintiff also alleged that all Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) by their actions. (Id. at 12, ¶¶ 186-189). In addition, at the February
14
11, 2015, hearing, Plaintiff clarified that he was also alleging that Defendant Ringuette had
violated his right to equal protection. (February 11, 2015, Motions Hearing, Digital Recording at
11:49 a.m.).
Thereafter, the Defendants filed a series of Rule 12 motions to dismiss and in the
alternative Rule 56 motions for summary judgment that are presently before the Court. (See,
[Docket Nos. 13, 23, 32, 54, 61, and 84]).
IV. THE CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, [DOCKET NO. 13]
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Galstad, Hajicek, LaCoursiere, Schrage, and City8
violated his rights to: 1) equal protection; 2) to make and enforce contracts; 3) to be free of
retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights; 4) to keep and bear arms; 5) to be free
from malicious prosecution; 6) to trial by jury; 7) to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures, and 8) “to life, liberty, and property.” (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], Exhibit
A, 4-9, ¶¶ 141-170). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Richter and Murphy violated his rights: 1)
to be free of retaliation for exercising his rights to free speech and freedom of the press; 2) to
make and enforce contracts; 3) to “life, liberty, and property”, and to equal protection. (Id. at 9-
11, ¶¶ 171-185). Finally, Plaintiff alleged that all the City Defendants violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) by their actions. (Id. at 12, ¶¶ 186-189).
8
Plaintiff specifically alleged that the East Grand Forks Police Department violated his rights. Plaintiff has not,
however, named the East Grand Forks Police Department as a Defendant. (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11],
Exhibit A, 4-6, ¶¶ 142-154). Nor could he. Under Minnesota law, absent authorization to sue and be sued, a
department of a municipal entity is not subject to suit. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 700 N.W.2d 502, 505-06 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2005); In re Scott Cnty. Master Docket, 672 F. Supp. 1152, 1187 n.1 (D. Minn. 1987), aff'd sub nom.
Myers v. Scott Cnty., 868 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1989) (“[Municipal] departments or offices are not legal entities
subject to suit; therefore, the claims against them must be dismissed.”). Under the liberal standard for construing the
pleadings of pro se plaintiffs, the Court construes the allegations Plaintiff made against the City of East Grand Forks
Police Department as directed to the named defendant, Defendant City.
15
The City Defendants move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them with prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.9
A. Vicarious Liability
As a threshold matter, the Court finds it necessary to address whether Plaintiff has
submitted sufficient evidence to impose liability on any of the City Defendants for the actions of
any of the other named Defendants, Picazio, or her other Florida associates. In general,
“[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the
Constitution.” Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662).
Courts have recognized, however, that government officials may be liable under section
1983 for the acts of a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate a plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. See, e.g., Simpson v. Weeks, 570 F.2d 240, 243 (8th Cir. 1978). The
Eighth Circuit has explained:
To prove a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the
defendant conspired with others to deprive him of constitutional rights; (2) that at
least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy; and (3) that the overt act injured the plaintiff. Askew v. Millerd,
191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff is additionally required to prove a
deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege in order to prevail on a § 1983
civil conspiracy claim. Id.
Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 731 F.3d 784, 798 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting White v.
McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2008)).
A claim of conspiracy under section 1983 requires a showing of sufficient evidence to
support the conclusion that the defendants reached an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of
9
In the alternative, the City Defendants move for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s claims against them,
contending that each is entitled to qualified immunity.
16
constitutionally guaranteed rights. Id. at 798-99 (quoting White, 519 F.3d at 816). To show
sufficient evidence of an agreement, a Plaintiff must provide “allegations of specific facts
tending to show a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the alleged conspirators.” Murray v. Lene, 595
F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kearse v. Moffett, 311 F.3d 891, 892 (8th Cir. 2002)).
“Speculation and conjecture are not enough to prove a conspiracy exists.” Mettler v. Whitledge,
165 F.3d 1197, 1206 (8th Cir. 1999) (citing Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421–22
(4th Cir. 1996) (concluding that the evidence was insufficient where the plaintiff had shown
important evidence had been misplaced but had offered no evidence of concerted action among
the individuals claimed to be co-conspirators)).
Plaintiff’s allegations about Defendant Hajicek are not sufficient to show that he came to
a meeting of the minds with anyone to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff first
alleges that Defendant Hajicek received, investigated, and reported the complaints that Picazio
and her associates made about Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Hajicek showed
copies of the complaints to the county attorney to see if any legal action should be taken other
than advising Picazio and her associates that they could obtain Florida harassment restraining
orders against Plaintiff if the circumstances warranted it. Even when viewed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, those allegations show only that Picazio and her associates sought to
invoke police authority by filing their complaints about Plaintiff. Evidence that a private
individual merely filed a complaint with the police seeking to invoke police authority is not
sufficient to show that the private individual conspired with the public official. Young v.
Harrison, 284 F.3d 863, 870 (8th Cir. 2002). As such, those allegations are not sufficient to
allege that Defendant Hajicek conspired with Picazio and her associates to violate any of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
17
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Hajicek, in violation of EGFPD policy, refused to
provide Plaintiff with requested copies of the police reports, and refused to record Plaintiff’s
complaints that several of Picazio’s associates had made threats against Plaintiff’s safety. Even
accepting those allegations as true, the only allegations that Plaintiff has offered to indicate that
the possible misconduct arose from an agreement to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are
conclusory assertions that Plaintiff has failed to support with allegations of specific fact. Such
conclusory assertions are insufficient to allege that Defendant Hajicek came to a meeting of the
minds with anyone to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Murray, 595 F.3d at 870.
Plaintiff next asserts that Defendant Schrage’s actions while and after executing the
Minnesota state court search warrant are evidence that he conspired with the other Defendants,
and in turn, Picazio and her Florida associates. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Schrage obtained
and executed a search warrant at his apartment, seized Plaintiff’s hard drive, asked Defendant
Norland to perform a search of the hard drive, and later misquoted Plaintiff in a report. As
discussed in more detail in section IV.D.2.b, below, the search of Plaintiff’s hard drive did not
violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore any concerted actions that Plaintiff alleges with regard
to the search of his hard drive cannot be the basis of an alleged conspiracy under section 1983.
See, Burton, 731 F.3d at 798 (requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate a constitutional violation in
order to show a conspiracy under section 1983). Nor are Plaintiff’s other conclusory factual
allegations sufficient to show that Defendant Schrage came to a meeting of the minds with
anyone to participate in a plan to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Plaintiff has alleged absolutely nothing about Defendants City, Richter, Hedlund, or
Murphy, to indicate that any of those Defendants came to a meeting of the minds with Picazio,
18
her Florida associates, or any of the other named Defendant to participate in a plan to deprive
Plaintiff of a constitutional right.10
Courts have also held that, under RICO, a government official may be liable for the acts
of another individual, provided both participate in the operation or management of a corrupt
organization, as defined by the statute. See, Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185 (1993).
However, Plaintiff has alleged nothing but generic, conclusory statements that Defendants have
violated RICO by their actions. Mere conclusory allegations that a particular defendant has
violated a statute or a constitutional right are insufficient to state a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific
facts in this case for which vicarious liability could be imposed on any of the City Defendants for
the acts of Picazio, her Florida associates, or any of the other named Defendants.
B. Official Capacity Claims
To the extent that Plaintiff has alleged § 1983 claims against the City Defendants in their
official capacities, Plaintiff is, in essence, alleging claims against Defendant City. See, Elder-
Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A suit against a public official in his
official capacity is actually a suit against the entity for which the official is an agent”). “[T]o
establish the liability of an official acting in his official capacity, the plaintiff must prove that ‘a
policy or custom [of the city] caused the alleged violation.’” Id. (quoting Rogers v. City of Little
Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 800 (8th Cir. 1998)).
10
Although Plaintiff asks the Court to infer that Defendants Richter and Murphy are somehow involved in a
conspiracy of silence regarding an allegedly improper loan made by the East Grand Forks EDHA, Plaintiff has
alleged absolutely nothing to indicate that said alleged conspiracy involved an agreement to violate any of Plaintiff’s
19
Plaintiff makes two allegations with regard to the existence of relevant municipal policies
and customs. Plaintiff first alleges that Defendant Hajicek acted contrary to a posted policy
when he refused to provide Plaintiff with copies of requested police reports. Assuming for the
sake of argument that Defendant Hajicek’s refusal violated one of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights, the Court cannot conclude that the policy that Defendant Hajicek allegedly disobeyed had
actually caused him to refuse Plaintiff the requested copies of the police reports. Plaintiff next
generically and conclusorily alleges that all of the City Defendants were acting pursuant to
municipal policies or customs in all of their actions. That allegation is merely a recitation of one
of the elements of a section 1983 claim against a municipal entity. See, City of Canton, Ohio v.
Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989) (noting that the first issue in a case alleging municipal liability
under section 1983 is “whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom
and the alleged constitutional deprivation.”). A plaintiff’s “formulaic recitation of the elements”
of a claim will not suffice to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555. As such, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state claims against the City Defendants
in their official capacities.
Based on the foregoing the Court recommends GRANTING the City Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 13], to the extent the motion pertains to all of the claims against
the City Defendants in their official capacities.
C. RICO Claims Against All City Defendants
As discussed in section IV.A, supra, Plaintiff has only generically and conclusorily
alleged that each of the City Defendants has violated RICO by their actions. Such conclusory
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
20
D. Remaining Individual Capacity Claims
1. City of East Grand Forks
Plaintiff has alleged no actions taken against Plaintiff by Defendant City itself. To the
extent that Plaintiff’s allegations can be construed to assert that Defendant City is vicariously
liable for the acts of its employees or the EGFPD, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim.
[A] municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its officials or
employees when those acts implement or execute an unconstitutional municipal
policy or custom. For a municipality to be liable, a plaintiff must prove that a
municipal policy or custom was the moving force [behind] the constitutional
violation.
Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1204 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). As discussed in
section IV.B, supra, Plaintiff has failed to allege in anything other than a conclusory manner
unsupported by specific facts, that any municipal policies or customs existed that were the
motivating force behind any of the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends GRANTING the City Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 13], to the extent the motion pertains to the claims against
Defendant City.
2. Officer Aeisso Schrage
In addition to the generic, conclusory assertions that Defendant Shrage violated
Plaintiff’s rights in the section of the Amended Complaint purporting to set forth the factual
bases for his claims for relief, Plaintiff alleged in the fact section of his Amended Complaint that
Defendant Schrage applied for, received, and executed a Minnesota state court warrant to search
Defendant’s residence for evidence that Plaintiff had violated the Florida protective order and the
sentence entered against Plaintiff on October 29, 2012. Plaintiff also alleges that, just prior to
executing that warrant, Defendant Schrage stood in the hallway outside the door to Plaintiff’s
apartment and listened to Plaintiff’s telephone conversation with Defendant LaCoursiere.

21
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Schrage later misquoted in a report a statement that
Plaintiff made in the course of that conversation.
a. First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Plaintiff’s alleges that Defendant Schrage retaliated against him for exercising his First
Amendment rights.
In order to demonstrate retaliation in violation of the First Amendment under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, [Plaintiff] must show (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) the
government official took adverse action against him that would chill a person of
ordinary firmness from continuing in the activity, and (3) the adverse action was
motivated at least in part by the exercise of the protected activity.
Spencer v. Jackson Cnty. Mo., 738 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff contends that his publishing of statements about Picazio and her Florida
associates on the internet in violation of the Florida protective order and his Minnesota state
court sentence is constitutionally protected activity. Violation of an out-of-state harassment
protective order, however, is criminal conduct in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, Subd. 6; see
also, 18 U.S.C. § 2266(5)(a) (defining protection order to include orders issued for the purpose
of preventing harassment against another person); 18 U.S.C. § 2265(a) (requiring states to
enforce out-of-state protective orders as if issued in-state). Criminal conduct is not protected
activity for the sake of First Amendment retaliation claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
allege sufficient specific facts to state a retaliation claim against Defendant Schrage.
b. Fourth Amendment Claim
Plaintiff next alleges that Defendant Schrage violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be
free from unreasonable searches by listening through the door to Plaintiff’s apartment and by
later asking Defendant Norland to conduct a search of the contents of Plaintiff’s seized computer
hard drive.
22
To successfully plead a Fourth Amendment claim in a section 1983 action, Plaintiff must
demonstrate that an unlawful search or seizure occurred and that the alleged Fourth Amendment
violation was unreasonable. McCoy v. City of Monticello, 342 F.3d 842, 846 (8th Cir. 2003)
(citing Hawkins v. City of Farmington, 189 F.3d 695, 702 (8th Cir. 1999)).
Under Eighth Circuit precedent, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Schrage violated
his Fourth amendment rights by standing in the hallway outside his apartment door and listening
unaided to his telephone conversation through the door fail to state a claim of a Fourth
Amendment violation. In United States v. Eisler, the Eighth Circuit held that an apartment
resident did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway outside his
apartment door upon which to challenge a law-enforcement officer’s unaided listening to the
defendant’s conversations inside the apartment through the door. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814, 816 (8th
Cir. 1977) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)).
Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Schrage unlawfully had Plaintiff’s hard drive later
searched also fail to state a claim of a Fourth Amendment rights violation. Plaintiff conclusorily
alleges that the search warrant did not authorize that forensic search. The Court cannot accept
Plaintiff’s assertion of a legal conclusion as fact. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397 (“In considering a
motion to dismiss, courts . . . reject conclusory allegations of law[.]”). The text of the Minnesota
state court search warrant, in fact, specifically authorized Defendant Schrage to search
Defendant’s residence, person, and motor vehicle for evidence, “including records . . . contained
on a computer hard drive,” that Plaintiff had been violating the Florida protective order and the
sentence entered against Plaintiff on October 29, 2012. (See Amended Complaint, [Docket No.
11], Ex. J, 1). “[A] lawful search extends to all areas and containers in which the object of the
search may be found.” United States v. Stoltz, 683 F.3d 934, 938 (8th Cir. 2012). As a computer
23
hard drive may contain “records . . . contained on a computer hard drive”, the search warrant
authorized a search of Plaintiff’s hard drive.
c. Remaining Claims Against Defendant Schrage
Plaintiff’s alleges only legal conclusions unsupported by specific facts with respect to his
claims that Defendant Schrage violated his right to equal protection, right to trial by jury, rights
under the Second Amendment, right to make and enforce contracts, right to be free from
malicious prosecution, and rights to “life, liberty, and property.” The court cannot accept
Plaintiff’s asserted conclusions of law as a substitute for allegations of specific facts. Silver, 105
F.3d at 397. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail to state claims on which relief may be granted.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 13], to the extent the motion pertains to Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Schrage in his individual capacity.
3. EGFPD Chief of Police Michael Hedlund
Plaintiff did not identify any specific claims against Defendant Hedlund in the section of
his Amended Complaint in which he purported to set out the factual bases for his claims for
relief. In the fact section of his Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant
Hedlund refused to disclose to him the name of an individual who had filed a complaint about
Plaintiff and that Defendant Hedlund investigated Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Schrage had
misquoted Plaintiff when filing a police report and concluded that the complaint was unfounded.
24
a. Equal Protection
Plaintiff conclusorily asserts that Defendant Hedlund did not provide him with equal
protection when he did not provide Plaintiff with the name of the individual who had filed a
complaint against him even though the police report listed Plaintiff’s name.
Plaintiff does not assert at any time that he is a member of protected class and as such,
can only be construed to be alleging a “class of one” equal protection claim. To allege a “class
of one” equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show: 1) that the state
actor intentionally treated the plaintiff differently than others who are similarly situated to the
plaintiff; and 2) there was no rational basis for the differential treatment. Barstad v. Murray
Cnty., 420 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir. 2005). The Court also notes that the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act authorizes Minnesota law enforcement agencies to withhold the identity of a
complainant for the sake of protecting the complainant’s safety. See, Minn. Stat. § 13.82, Subds.
14, 17(f). Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts to indicate that he is similarly situated to the
individual whose name Defendant Hedlund did not disclose or to support the inference that
Defendant Hedlund did not have a rational basis for treating Plaintiff, as the subject of the
complaint, differently than the complainant.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state an equal protection claim against Defendant
Hedlund.
b. Investigation of Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hedlund “covered up” police misconduct when he
investigated Plaintiff’s complaint about Defendant Schrage and concluded that the complaint
was unfounded. Plaintiff’s allegations are, in essence, that Defendant Hedlund did not discipline
Defendant Schrage as Plaintiff deemed appropriate. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right
25
to have government employees disciplined as he deems appropriate. It is well recognized that
government “entities, in their capacities as employers, have wide discretion and control over
personnel decisions, internal affairs, discipline, and office policy.” Belk v. City of Eldon, 228
F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Shands v. City of Kennett, 993 F.2d 1337, 1344 (8th Cir.
1993); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371, 373 (1882)). As
Plaintiff has no right to have government employees disciplined as he deems appropriate,
Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Hedlund “covered up” police misconduct fail to state a
claim of a constitutional violation on which relief may be granted.
against Defendant Hedlund in his individual capacity.
4. EGF City Administrator David Murphy
In addition to the generic, conclusory assertions that Defendant Murphy violated
bases for his claims for relief, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Murphy investigated his complaint
that Defendant Richter had ordered an EDHA employee to shred Plaintiff’s address verification
form, and concluded that the shredding had been done in error.
a. Investigation of Complaint
Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Murphy concluded that Defendant Richter had
ordered the address verification form be shredded in error are another allegation that a Defendant
was not disciplined as Plaintiff deemed appropriate. For the reasons discussed in section
IV.D.3.b, supra, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Murphy covered up Defendant’s Richter’s
26
decision to have Plaintiff’s address verification form shredded fails to state a claim of a
constitutional violation on which relief may be granted.
b. Remaining Claims against Defendant Murphy
Plaintiff’s alleges only mere legal conclusions with respect to his claims that Defendant
Murphy violated his right to equal protection, right to make and enforce contracts, rights to be
free of retaliation for exercising his rights to free speech and freedom of the press, and rights to
“life, liberty, and property.” The court cannot accept Plaintiff’s asserted conclusions of law as a
substitute for allegations of specific facts. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397. Plaintiff’s conclusory
allegations fail to state claims of violations of constitutional rights on which relief may be
granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
against Defendant Murphy in his individual capacity.
5. East Grand Forks EDHA Director James Richter
In addition to the generic, conclusory assertions that Defendant Richter violated
bases for his claims for relief, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Richter had ordered an EDHA
employee to shred an address verification form that Plaintiff needed to have completed and
submitted in order to obtain a security clearance to do janitorial work for his employer, Five Star,
at the NWS facility in Grand Forks.
27
a. First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Plaintiff asks the Court to infer that Defendant Richter ordered the EDHA employee to
shred the pertinent address verification form as an adverse action in retaliation for Plaintiff
reporting Defendant City to the Minnesota State Auditor.

Spencer, 738 F.3d at 911.
The specific factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, however, themselves
indicate that Defendant Richter ordered an employee to shred the address verification form, not
to take adverse action against Plaintiff, but because Defendant Richter did not trust his own
employee who was working on completing the form. In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged that he
suffered any adverse action as a result of the shredding; indeed, Plaintiff received his security
clearance following address verification by the City and Plaintiff does not allege any lost wages
due to any purported delay receiving his security clearance. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
allege a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Richter.
b. Remaining claims against Defendant Richter.
Plaintiff’s alleges only mere legal conclusions with respect to his claims that Defendant
Richter violated Plaintiff’s right to equal protection, right to make and enforce contracts, and
rights to “life, liberty, and property.” Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail to state claims of
violations of constitutional rights on which relief may be granted. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
28
against Defendant Richter in his individual capacity.
6. EGFPD Lieutenant Detective Rodney Hajicek
In addition to the generic, conclusory assertions that Defendant Hajicek violated
bases for his claims for relief, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Hajicek received, investigated, and
reported the complaints Picazio and her Florida associates made about Plaintiff. Plaintiff also
alleged that Defendant Hajicek printed off copies of the complaints to show to the county
attorney to see if any legal action should be taken against Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Hajicek refused to provide him with requested copies of police reports of the
complaints. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Hajicek refused to record Plaintiff’s own
complaints that several of Picazio’s out-of-state associates had made threats against Plaintiff’s
safety if Plaintiff chose to travel to Florida to appear at the hearing on Picazio’s request for a
Florida protective order.
a. Equal Protection
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hajicek violated his right to equal protection by refusing
to provide him with the requested copies of police reports, and refusing to record threats made
against Plaintiff by several of Picazio’s associates in Florida. Plaintiff is again alleging a “class
of one” equal protection claim. To allege a class of one equal protection claim, Plaintiff must
allege sufficient facts to show: 1) that Defendant Hajicek intentionally treated Plaintiff
differently than other similarly situated individuals; and 2) there was no rational basis for the
differential treatment. Barstad, 420 F.3d at 884. Plaintiff has, however, failed to allege the
29
existence of any other individuals who are similarly situated to him and with respect to whom
Plaintiff received differential treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state an equal
protection claim against Defendant Hajicek.
b. First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Hajicek retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his
rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

With regard to Defendant Hajicek’s actions prior to the issuance of the Florida protective
order, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts on which to infer that Defendant Hajicek’s
investigation of the complaints filed by Picazio and her Florida associates and failure to record
Plaintiff’s complaints about Picazio’s Florida associates resulted in any adverse effects to
Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts on which to conclude that
Defendant Hajicek’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with copies of the requested police reports, while
allegedly adverse to Plaintiff, was specifically motivated by Plaintiff’s exercise of his First
Amendment rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations with regard to Defendant
Hajicek’s actions before the issuance of the Florida state protective order fail to state a First
Amendment retaliation claim.
With regard to Defendant Hajicek’s actions after the issuance of the Florida state
protective order, Plaintiff erroneously assumes that his criminal actions in violating the Florida
protective order and, later, the Minnesota state court sentence entered against Plaintiff on
30
October 29, 2012, constituted protected First Amendment activity. See, Minn. Stat. § 609.748,
Subd. 6; see also, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2265(a) and 2266(5)(a). Criminal conduct is not protected
activity for the purpose of First Amendment retaliation claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
allegations with regard to Defendant Hajicek’s actions following the issuance of the Florida
protective order also fail to state a First Amendment retaliation claim.
c. Remaining Claims against Defendant Hajicek
Plaintiff’s alleges only generic mere legal conclusions with respect to his claims that
Defendant Hajicek violated Plaintiff’s rights to make and enforce contracts, to keep and bear
arms, to be free from malicious prosecution, to trial by jury, to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and to “life, liberty, and property.” Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail
to state claims of violations of constitutional rights on which relief may be granted. Silver, 105
F.3d at 397; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
against Defendant Hajicek in his individual capacity.
E. Alternate Rationale – Qualified Immunity
Assuming for the sake of argument that Rule 12(b)(6) did not require the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims against the City Defendants, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s claims should still
be dismissed as the City Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on the facts as
alleged in the Amended Complaint.
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil
damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
31
231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). A two-step process is used
for resolving qualified immunity claims: “First, a court must decide whether the facts that a
plaintiff has alleged . . . or shown . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right . . . . Second,
if the plaintiff has satisfied this first step, the court must decide whether the right at issue was
‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232
(citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s allegations in his Amended Complaint fail at the first step of the analysis. As
discussed in more detail in the sections above, Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations failed to
make out plausible claims of violations of any of Plaintiff’s articulated constitutional rights.
Consequently, the Court would alternatively recommend that those claims be DISMISSED on
the grounds of qualified immunity.
F. Plaintiff’s Claims Should be Dismissed with Prejudice
Having concluded that the City Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
should be granted in its entirety11, the Court turns to whether Plaintiff’s claims against the City
Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. There is a split in practice among the Federal
courts about whether a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is normally one with prejudice or without
prejudice.12 While the Eighth Circuit does not appear to have addressed the issue directly,
11
Because the Court recommends granting the City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No.13], in its entirety,
either on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to state claims on which relief may be granted or on the basis that the City
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, the Court does not address the City Defendant’s
alternative motion for summary judgment.
12
Compare CNH America LLC v. Int’l Union, 645 F.3d 785, 795 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “[o]rdinarily, if a
district court grants a defendant's 12(b)(6) motion, the court will dismiss the claim without prejudice to give parties
an opportunity to fix their pleading defects ... [b]ut if a party does not file a motion to amend or a proposed amended
complaint, it is not an abuse of discretion for the district court to dismiss the claims with prejudice.”); Eminence
Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to
amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.
A district court's failure to consider the relevant factors and articulate why dismissal should be with prejudice
instead of without prejudice may constitute an abuse of discretion.”); Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 252–53
(4th Cir. 1999) (holding that “the district court should not have dismissed the complaint with prejudice without
32
decisions from the Eighth Circuit and this Court generally favor dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6)
without prejudice, at least where there is no evidence of persistent pleading failures. See
Michaelis v. Neb. State Bar Ass’n, 717 F.2d 437, 438–39 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Ordinarily dismissal
of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 should be with leave to amend. But if
the plaintiff has persisted in violating Rule 8 the district court is justified in dismissing the
complaint with prejudice.” (internal citation omitted)); Larson v. Stow, 36 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir.
1994) (table decision); Patil v. Minnesota State University, Mankato, No. 12–cv–1052
(JRT/JSM), 2012 WL 7807608, at *10 (D.Minn. Dec. 10, 2012).
However, the Court notes that, as Plaintiff’s claims against the City Defendants are also
barred by qualified immunity, the claims must be dismissed with prejudice as they fail at the
outset as a matter of law. See, Trendle v. Campbell, 465 Fed. Appx. 584, 585 (8th Cir. 2012)
(unpublished) (upon finding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, modifying
judgment to reflect dismissal with prejudice) (citing Moore v. Briggs, 381 F.3d 771, 775 (8th
Cir. 2004) (upon concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, remanding case
with directions to dismiss claims against them with prejudice)).
Based on the forgoing, the Court recommends that all of Plaintiff’s claims against the
City Defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice.
permitting [the plaintiff] an opportunity to amend,” and explaining that “[t]he better practice is to allow at least one
amendment regardless of how unpromising the initial pleading appears because except in unusual circumstances it is
unlikely that the court will be able to determine conclusively on the face of a defective pleading whether plaintiff
actually can state a claim.”); with Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, 478 F.3d 341, 346 (6th Cir. 2007) (“12(b)(6)
dismissal ... is generally construed as a dismissal with prejudice on the merits”); Higgins v. City of Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 103 Fed.Appx. 648, 651 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (“[A] dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim is generally with prejudice.”); Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122, 133 (D.C.Cir. 2012)
(Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (“On the contrary, Rule 41(b) contemplates that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ordinarily
operates as a dismissal with prejudice, unless the district court in its discretion states otherwise.”); City of Jefferson
v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 2007 WL 1965572, at *5 (W.D.Mo. Jul. 3, 2007) (explaining that “dismissals under
Rule 12(b)(6) are generally with prejudice,” but “[g]iven the contorted procedural history of this dispute,”
dismissing the claim without prejudice).
33
V. THE COUNTY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, [DOCKET NO. 23]
The County Defendants move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
As in section IV.A, supra, the Court deems it necessary to first consider whether Plaintiff
has alleged sufficient specific facts that would justify imposing liability on either of the County
Defendants for the actions of Picazio, her Florida associates, or of any of the other named
Defendants. In general, “[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff
must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual
actions, has violated the Constitution.” Parrish, 594 F.3d at 1001 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662).
Courts have recognized that government officials may, however, be liable under section 1983 for
the acts of a coconspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate a plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.
Similar to the allegations against the City Defendants, Plaintiff’s allegations against the
County Defendants fail to set forth any specific facts upon which to infer that either of the
County Defendants came to a meeting of the minds with anyone to participate in a plan to violate
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, Murray, 595 F.3d at 870 (holding that a conspiracy claim
under section 1983 requires allegations of specific facts tending to show a ‘meeting of the minds’
among the alleged conspirators
In addition, as the Court has already discussed in section IV.A, supra, the Court cannot
accept Plaintiff’s mere conclusory legal allegations that the County Defendants violated RICO as
a substitute for allegations of specific facts.
34
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific
facts on which vicarious liability could be imposed on either of the County Defendants for the
acts of Picazio, her Florida associates, or any of the other named Defendants.
B. Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff’s claims against each of the County Defendants in their official capacities are, in
essence, claims against Polk County. See, Elder-Keep, 460 F.3d at 986. “[T]o establish the
liability of an official acting in his official capacity, the plaintiff must prove that “a policy or
custom [of the County] caused the alleged violation.” Id. (citing Rogers, 152 F.3d at 800).
Plaintiff has alleged absolutely no specific facts that Polk County maintained policies or customs
that motivated any alleged constitutional violations by County Defendants Erdman or Norland.
Based on the foregoing the Court recommends GRANTING the County Defendant’s
the County Defendants in their official capacities.
C. RICO Claims Against Both County Defendants
As discussed in sections IV.A and V.A, supra, Plaintiff has only generically and
conclusorily alleged that each of the County Defendants has violated RICO by their actions.
Such conclusory allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
D. Remaining Individual Capacity Claims
1. Defendant Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Norland
Plaintiff makes no specific claims against Defendant Norland in the section of his
Amended Complaint purporting to set forth the factual bases for his claims for relief. Plaintiff,
however, alleges that Defendant Norland performed a forensic search of Plaintiff’s computer
35
hard drive pursuant to an issued Minnesota state court search warrant that did not authorize the
search, and that Defendant Norland viewed some of Plaintiff’s private files while doing so.
The Court cannot accept Plaintiff’s assertion of a legal conclusion that the search warrant
did not authorize the search of the hard drive as a fact. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397. In addition,
contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the text of the search warrant expressly authorized law
enforcement to search Plaintiff’s residence for “records . . . including those contained on a hard
drive” as evidence that Plaintiff may have violated the Florida protective order and Plaintiff’s
sentence entered against Plaintiff on October 29, 2012. (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11],
Ex. J). “[A] lawful search extends to all areas and containers in which the object of the search
may be found.” Stoltz, 683 F.3d at 938. It is axiomatic that “records . . . contained on a hard
drive” may be found on a hard drive. As such, the search warrant expressly authorized the search
of Plaintiff’s hard drive.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Norland violated his Fourth Amendment rights by
viewing Plaintiff’s private files while performing the forensic search of Plaintiff’s hard drive.
There is a dearth of Eighth Circuit cases that are directly on point on this issue. However, courts
from other circuits that have considered the issue have found that, where an officer conducting a
search, pursuant to warrant that authorizes a search for a particular type of computer file,
encounters files that are not identified in the warrant but are intermingled with those that are, the
officer does not offend the Fourth Amendment merely by viewing the files not listed in the
warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Miranda, 325 F. App'x 858, 860 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding
that, under the plain view doctrine, officer lawfully viewed and seized pornographic files
intermingled with counterfeiting files mentioned in the search warrant). The Court finds the
36
reasoning of those courts persuasive. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a Fourth Amendment
claim against Defendant Norland.
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends GRANTING the County Defendants’
against Defendant Norland in his individual capacity.
2. Defendant Polk County Sheriff Barb Erdman
Plaintiff makes no claims against Defendant Erdman in the section of his Amended
Complaint purporting to set forth the factual bases for his claims for relief. In the fact section of
his Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff alleges that, after he filed a complaint about
Defendant Norland’s search of Plaintiff’s computer hard drive, Defendant Erdman expressed her
opinion that the search was legal.
Plaintiff’s allegation is yet another attempt to plead a claim of a constitutional violation
for failure to discipline a government employee in a manner that Plaintiff deemed appropriate.
As the Court has already articulated in section IV.D.3.b, supra, Plaintiff has no constitutional
right to have a government employee disciplined in a manner that he deems appropriate.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Erdman upon which relief
may be granted.
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends GRANTING the County Defendants’
against Defendant Erdman in her individual capacity.
37
E. Alternate Rationale – Qualified Immunity
Assuming for the sake of argument that Rule 12(b)(6) did not require the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims against the County Defendants, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims
should still be dismissed as the County Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on the
facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
A two-step process is used for resolving qualified immunity claims: “First, a court must
decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . or shown . . . make out a violation of a
constitutional right . . . . Second, if the plaintiff has satisfied this first step, the court must decide
whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged
misconduct.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s allegations in his Amended Complaint against the County Defendants fail at
the first step of the analysis. As discussed in more detail in the sections above, the specific facts
that Plaintiff has alleged failed to make out plausible claims that any of the County Defendants
violated any of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Consequently, the Court would alternatively
recommend that those claims be DISMISSED on the grounds of qualified immunity.
F. Plaintiff’s Claims Should be Dismissed with Prejudice
Because Plaintiff’s allegations against the County Defendants are also barred under the
doctrine of qualified immunity, the claims should be dismissed with prejudice as they fail at the
outset as a matter of law. See, Trendle, 465 Fed. Appx. at 585 (citing Moore, 381 F.3d at 775).
See, also, section IV.F, supra.
Based on the forgoing, the Court recommends that all of Plaintiff’s claims against the
City Defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice.
38
VI. DEFENDANT GALSTAD’S MOTION TO DISMISS, [DOCKET NO. 32], and

AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, [DOCKET NO. 54].
Defendant Galstad filed his Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 32], after Plaintiff filed his
initial complaint. After Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], Defendant
Galstad filed his Amended Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment,
[Docket No. 54]. At the motion hearing, however, Defendant Galstad clarified that he was
proceeding on his motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), and only
challenging the sufficiency of the allegations in Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (December 17,
2014, Motions Hearing, Digital Recording at 12:14 p.m.).
The Court again deems it necessary to determine whether Plaintiff has alleged any
specific factual allegations supporting the imposition of liability on Defendant Galstad for the
actions of Picazio, her Florida associates, or any other named Defendant. Generally, in a section
1983 suit, a plaintiff must plead that each “Government-official defendant, through the official's
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Parrish, 594 F.3d at 1001 (quoting Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662).
Courts have recognized, however, that government officials may be liable under section
1983 for the acts of a coconspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate a plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. See, e.g., Simpson, 570 F.2d at 243.
To prove a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the
defendant conspired with others to deprive him of constitutional rights; (2) that at
least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy; and (3) that the overt act injured the plaintiff. Askew v. Millerd,
191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff is additionally required to prove a
deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege in order to prevail on a § 1983
civil conspiracy claim. Id.
39
Burton, 731 F.3d at 798 (quoting White, 519 F.3d at 814).
A claim of conspiracy under section 1983 requires a showing of sufficient evidence to
support the conclusion that the defendants reached an agreement to deprive the plaintiff of
constitutionally guaranteed rights. Id. at 798-99 (quoting White, 519 F.3d at 816). To show
sufficient evidence of an agreement, a Plaintiff must provide “allegations of specific facts
tending to show a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the alleged conspirators.” Murray, 595 F.3d at
870.
Of all of the specific facts that Plaintiff has alleged against Defendant Galstad, only the
allegations that Defendant Galstad intended to call to the stand two non-party officers who would
testify falsely as part of a plan to put Plaintiff in a state prison warrant a possible inference that
Defendant Galstad came to a meeting of the minds to participate in a plan to deprive Plaintiff of
a constitutional right, namely Plaintiff’s right to due process. See, Napue v. People of State of
Ill., 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) (holding that a State obtaining a conviction through false evidence
it introduced or allowed to be introduced is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment). In the context of reviewing the motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept those factual allegations as true. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397. However, Plaintiff has offered no
specific factual allegations about the actions of those two unnamed officers. In addition, those
allegations are not sufficient to allege that Defendant Galstad conspired with Picazio or her
Florida associates.
With regard to whether Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations support a reasonable
inference that Defendant Galstad conspired with any of the other named Defendants, Plaintiff
specifically argues that Defendant Galstad conspired with Defendant LaCoursiere, pointing to his
allegations that Defendant LaCoursiere abruptly changed his assessment of the strength of
40
Plaintiff’s case on the day of trial, communicated Defendant Galstad’s plea offer to Plaintiff, and
described the nature of the State’s case against Plaintiff. Plaintiff also points to his factual
allegations that, pursuant to a request from Defendant Galstad, Defendant LaCoursiere continued
to represent Plaintiff after the entry of the plea, and that Defendant LaCoursiere did not contact
Plaintiff immediately upon receiving notice of Defendant Galstad’s compliance motion on
December 10, 2012.
As a general rule, defense counsel has a duty to communicate plea offers to a defendant.
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012). Similarly, defense counsel has a duty to apprise
a defendant of his available options and the possible consequences of choosing amongst those
alternatives. Hawkman v. Parratt, 661 F.2d 1161, 1170 (8th Cir. 1981). In addition, numerous
courts have found that defense counsel advising a defendant of the nature of the government’s
case to be within the range of effective assistance, even where the defense counsel repeatedly
emphasized the strength of the government’s case and urged the defendant to accept a plea deal.
See, e.g., Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2000). In light of such cases, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s specific allegations about Defendant LaCoursiere’s actions on
October 29, 2012, are insufficient to allege that Defendant Galstad and Defendant LaCoursiere
came to a meeting of the minds to violate any of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.13 Nor are the
allegations that Defendant Galstad asked Judge Yon to allow Defendant LaCoursiere to continue
representing Plaintiff through the compliance hearing and that Defendant LaCoursiere did not
immediately notify Plaintiff upon receiving notice of Defendant Galstad’s December 6, 2012,
13
Indeed, the Court notes that during the December 17, 2014, hearing, the Plaintiff acknowledged that he was
permitted by the Minnesota state court judge to withdraw his initial Alford plea, was appointed a new public
defender to replace Defendant LaCoursiere, and ultimately, upon the advice of his new public defender (about
whom Plaintiff does not complain), he again entered an Alford plea under the same plea agreement terms as we
originally offered by Defendant Galstad to Plaintiff through Defendant LaCoursiere. (December 17, 2014, Motions
Hearing, Digital Recording at 12:27 p m.). This acknowledgement contradicts Plaintiff’s allegations that plea
negotiations between Defendant Galstad and Defendant LaCoursiere were conspiratorial in nature designed to
deprive Plaintiff of procedural due process.
41
compliance motion, sufficient to show a meeting of the minds between Defendant Galstad and
Defendant LaCoursiere to violate any of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Finally, Plaintiff has made no other specific factual allegations on which the Court could
conclude that Defendant Galstad conspired with any of the other named Defendants to engage in
a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Nor has Plaintiff alleged any specific facts
on which liability for the acts of another could be imposed on Defendant Galstad under RICO.
See, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Because Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts from which the Court could find that
Defendant Galstad conspired with Picazio, Picazio’s Florida associates, or any of the other
named Defendants, or violated RICO, and because the specific facts Plaintiff has alleged relate
only to two non-party officers about whose actions Plaintiff has made no specific factual
allegations, the Court can only assess the merits of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Galstad
on the basis of Defendant Galstad’s own actions as alleged by Plaintiff in the Amended
Complaint.
B. Official Capacity claims
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Galstad in his official capacity are, in essence, claims
against Defendant City. See, Elder-Keep, 460 F.3d at 986. “[T]o establish the liability of an
official acting in his official capacity, the plaintiff must prove that “a policy or custom [of the
City] caused the alleged violation.” Id. (citing Rogers, 152 F.3d at 800). As discussed in section
IV.B, supra, Plaintiff has not alleged in other than a conclusory manner, unsupported by any
specific facts, the existence of any policies or customs of Defendant City that motivated
Defendant Galstad’s actions.
42
Based on the foregoing the Court recommends GRANTING Defendant Galstad’s
Amended Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 54], to the extent the motion pertains to all of the
claims against the Defendant Galstad in his official capacity.
C. RICO Claim
As discussed in section IV.A and V.A, supra, Plaintiff has only generically and
conclusorily alleged that Defendant Galstad violated RICO by his actions. Such mere conclusory
allegations are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
D. Claims against Defendant Galstad in his Individual Capacity.
Plaintiff has generically and conclusorily alleged that Defendant Galstad violated his
rights to: 1) equal protection; 2) to make and enforce contracts; 3) to be free of retaliation for
exercising his First Amendment rights; 4) to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment;
5) to be free from malicious prosecution; 6) to trial by jury; 7) to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures; and 8) to “life, liberty, and property.” (Amended Complaint, [Docket No.
11], Exhibit A, 6-9, ¶¶ 155-170).
As a threshold matter, however, Defendant Galstad contends that the Court must dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against him as he is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions as a
prosecutor.
A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for acts performed “in initiating a

prosecution and in presenting the State's case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). “[F]unctions [] ‘intimately associated
with the judicial phase of the criminal process[]’ as opposed to investigative
‘police work’ or administrative duties [are] absolutely shielded” from liability
under section 1983 claims. Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1445 (8th Cir. 1987)
(quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. 984), abrogated on other grounds,
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991). Immunity
is not defeated by allegations of malice, vindictiveness, or self-interest. Id. at
1446.
43
Reasonover v. St. Louis Cnty., Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 579-80 (8th Cir. 2006).
Nearly all of Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations about Defendant Galstad concern
actions that Defendant Galstad took while performing prosecutorial functions. As Plaintiff has
not alleged that Defendant Galstad provided a sworn statement in support of the application for
the arrest warrant he signed, Defendant Galstad’s signing of the application for a warrant for
Plaintiff’s arrest was done as part of the initiation of the state’s case against Plaintiff. See,
Winslow v. Smith, 672 F. Supp. 2d 949, 966 (D. Neb. 2009) (noting a prosecutor has absolute
immunity for conduct in the preparation of an arrest warrant unless he acts as a witness (citing
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)). Defendant Galstad’s alleged participation in a plan to
present false testimony, and subsequent offer of a plea agreement to Plaintiff were also part of
his actions as a prosecutor. Reasonover, 447 F.3d at 580 (“Even if [the prosecutor] knowingly
presented false, misleading, or perjured testimony, . . . he is absolutely immune from suit.”); see
also, Winslow, 672 F. Supp. 2d at 966 (citing Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1446 (8th Cir.
1987) (prosecutor's activities in plea bargaining context warrant absolute immunity), overruled
on other grounds by Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991)). Defendant Galstad’s representations
to Judge Yon during the plea hearing and request that Defendant LaCoursiere continue to
represent Plaintiff through the sentencing and compliance hearings were also taken as part of the
state’s presentation of its case. Similarly, Defendant Galstad’s filing of a motion prior to the
compliance hearing, asking Judge Yon to accept evidence at the compliance hearing, and asking
to have a witness appear at the compliance hearing by video-conference were part of the State’s
presentation of its case against Plaintiff. Finally, Defendant Galstad’s actions in negotiating the
terms of a second plea agreement with Plaintiff through his new public defender was part of the
44
State’s prosecution of its case. See, Winslow, 672 F. Supp. 2d at 966. With regard to all of those
actions, Defendant Galstad has absolute immunity.14
Based on the foregoing the Court recommends GRANTING the Defendant’s Amended
Defendant Galstad in his individual capacity. Because all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Galstad are barred by absolute immunity and fail as a matter of law at the outset, the claims
should be DISMISSED with prejudice. See Davis v. S. Dakota Dep't of Corr., No. CIV. 05-
4016, 2005 WL 1593050, at *1 (D.S.D. June 30, 2005) (“Defects which cannot be cured by
amendment are recommended for dismissal with prejudice because as a matter of law plaintiff's
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against those defendants and
because the defect cannot be cured by amendment.”).15
VII. DEFENDANT LACOURSIERE’S MOTION TO DISMISS, [DOCKET NO. 61]
Defendant Michael LaCoursiere moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
him pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against him in his official
14
The only action taken by Defendant Galstad that is not part of the prosecution of the State’s case against Plaintiff
is the allegedly false representation Defendant Galstad made to Judge Yon while attempting to obtain a second
search warrant for the contents of Plaintiff’s hard drive. When a prosecutor performs actions traditionally reserved
for law enforcement officers, such as requesting a search warrant, the prosecutor is entitled only to qualified
immunity. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). Plaintiff’s sole remaining allegation that Defendant
Galstad made a false representation to Judge Yon when asking for a second warrant to search Plaintiff’s hard drive
fails to set forth sufficient facts on which to conclude that Defendant Galstad violated Plaintiff’s rights to equal
protection, to make and enforce contracts, to be free of retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, to keep
and bear arms under the Second Amendment, to be free from malicious prosecution, to trial by jury, to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, or to “life, liberty, and property.”
15
Because the Court recommends granting Defendant Galstad’s Amended Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 54], the
Court does not address the merits of Defendant Galstad’s alternative motion for summary judgment. The Court also
recommends DENYING as moot, Defendant Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 32], which was not
withdrawn.
45
capacity, and that Plaintiff’s claims against him in his individual capacity fail to state claims on
which relief may be granted.
A. Official Capacity Claims
Defendant LaCoursiere first contends that, as a public defender appointed by the state of
Minnesota, he is a state official and, as such, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from
exercising jurisdiction over section 1983 claims against him in his official capacity.
The Eleventh Amendment is an explicit limitation on the judicial power of the

United States. It deprives a federal court of power to decide certain claims against
States that otherwise would be within the scope of Art. III’s grant of jurisdiction.
For example, if a lawsuit against state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges a
constitutional claim, the federal court is barred from awarding damages against
the state treasury even though the claim arises under the Constitution. Similarly, if
a § 1983 action alleging a constitutional claim is brought directly against a State,
the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from granting any relief on that
claim. The Amendment thus is a specific constitutional bar against hearing even
federal claims that otherwise would be within the jurisdiction of the federal
courts.
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 120 (1984) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
As the Court has discussed above, a claim against a state official in his or her official
capacity is the functional equivalent of a claim against the entity of which the official is an agent.
See, Elder-Keep, 460 F.3d at 986. As Defendant LaCoursiere was appointed by the Minnesota
State Public Defender’s Office, he was an agent of the State of Minnesota. See, Eling v. Jones,
797 F.2d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 1986) (referring to the Minnesota State Public Defender’s Office as a
state official). A State may only be sued in a federal court where Congress has expressly and
unmistakably abrogated the State’s sovereign immunity to suit or the State has expressly waived
it. See, Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Pennhurst State
School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491
46
U.S. 1, 14–23, 57 (1989); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976)). There is no indication
that Congress has expressly and unmistakably abrogated the State of Minnesota’s sovereign
immunity to section 1983 claims. Nor has the State of Minnesota waived its sovereign immunity
to such claims. See, DeGidio v. Perpich, 612 F.Supp 1383 (D.Minn. 1985) (concluding that
“[w]hile Minnesota has waived its sovereign immunity to some extent in Minn. Stat. § 3.736, the
language of subdivision 2 of that section does not clearly show that Minnesota intended to waive
any claim of sovereign immunity in federal court.”); see also, Mashak v. Minnesota, No. CIV.
11-473 JRT/JSM, 2012 WL 928225, at *35 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2012) (“Minnesota has not
waived its immunity from § 1983 claims, which is the vehicle used to bring claims for violations
of the Constitution and its Amendments.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV. 11-
473 JRT/JSM, 2012 WL 928251 (D. Minn. Mar. 19, 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant LaCoursiere in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Based on the foregoing the Court recommends GRANTING Defendant LaCoursiere’s
Defendant LaCoursiere in his official capacity.
B. Individual Capacity Claims
Defendant LaCoursiere next contends that Plaintiff’s claims against him in his individual
capacity fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. “To state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color
of state law.” Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 540 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.
2008) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). In Polk County v. Dodson, the Supreme
Court held that public defenders appointed to represent indigent defendants in state criminal
47
proceedings do not act under color of state law. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 314, 317-19, 321-322,
324-25 (1981) (reasoning that although a public defender may be paid with state funds, he or she
acts independently of the state’s authority and instead exercises independent judgment in
representing a criminal defendant). Accordingly, under Dodson, because Defendant LaCoursiere
was not acting under the color of state law, as required to successfully maintain a section 1983
action against him, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant LaCoursiere in his individual capacity
fail to state claims on which relief may be granted.
Based on the foregoing the Court recommends GRANTING Defendant LaCoursiere’s
Defendant LaCoursiere in his individual capacity. Because all of Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant LaCoursiere fail as a matter of law at the outset, the claims should be DISMISSED
with prejudice. See, Davis, No. CIV. 05-4016, 2005 WL 1593050, at *1.
VIII. DEFENDANT RINGUETTE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, [DOCKET NO. 84]
Defendant Ringuette moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against her, arguing
that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against her and
that, in any event, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against her for violation
of a constitutional right.16
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendant Ringuette argues, as a threshold matter, that the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over section 1983 claims against her as a federal employee. Defendant
Ringuette works for the National Weather Service and, as such, is a federal rather than state
employee. See, 15 U.S.C. § 313 (listing weather forecasting as a duty of the Secretary of
16
In the alternative, Defendant Ringuette argues she has qualified immunity for her actions.
48
Commerce); see also, Nat’l Weather Serv. Employees Org., Branch 1-18 v. Brown, 18 F.3d 986,
987 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that the Secretary of Commerce oversees the National Weather
Service). Section 1983 is inapplicable to actions against a federal employee who acted under the
color of federal law. Jones v. United States, 16 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Haley v.
Walker, 751 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1984)). The Eighth Circuit has held that a complaint
alleging a section 1983 claim against a federal employee may be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
The Court notes that some courts considering pro se complaints have elected to construe
section 1983 claims alleged against federal employees as having been brought under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which is the federal
analog to suits brought against state officials under § 1983. See, e.g., Solliday v. Dir. of Bureau
of Prisons, No. CIV. 11-2350 MJD/JJG, 2012 WL 3839340, at *1 (D. Minn. July 27, 2012)
report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV. 11-2350 MJD/JJG, 2012 WL 3835853 (D. Minn.
Sept. 4, 2012). The Court also notes that Defendant Ringuette has offered alternative arguments
regarding Plaintiff’s claims in the event that the Court concludes it does have jurisdiction to
consider them under Bivens.
Based on the foregoing, to the extent that Plaintiff has brought her claims against
Defendant Ringuette under section 1983, the Court construes those claims as having been
brought under Bivens.
B. Failure to State a Claim
Defendant Ringuette next argues that the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint fail to state claims against her upon which relief may be granted. “The factors
necessary to establish a Bivens violation will vary with the constitutional provision at issue.”
49
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. At the February 11, 2015, motions hearing, Plaintiff clarified that he is
alleging that Defendant Ringuette: (1) violated his rights to equal protection; (2) retaliated
against him for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press;
(3) violated his right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (4) violated his
rights to “life, liberty, and property under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (February 11, 2015,
Motion Hearing, Digital Recording at 11:49 a.m.).
1. Vicarious Liability
As before, the Court deems it necessary to first consider whether Plaintiff has alleged
sufficient specific facts that would justify imposing vicarious liability on Defendant Ringuette
for the actions of Picazio, her Florida associates, any of the other named Defendants, or
Defendant Ringuette’s superior at the NWS. See, Parrish, 594 F.3d at 1001 (“Because vicarious
liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official
defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”).
Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Ringuette fail to set forth any specific facts upon
which to infer that she came to a meeting of the minds with anyone to participate in a plan to
violate any of Plaintiff’s asserted constitutional rights. See, Murray, 595 F.3d at 870 (holding
that a conspiracy claim under section 1983 requires allegations of specific facts tending to show
a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the alleged conspirators). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
allege any specific facts on which vicarious liability could be imposed on Defendant Ringuette
for the acts of Picazio, her Florida associates, any of the other named Defendants, or Defendant
Ringuette’s superior at the NWS.
As a result, the Court addresses only the merits of Plaintiff’s direct claims against
Defendant Ringuette on the basis of his allegations that Defendant Ringuette delayed informing
50
him that he had received security clearance and made complaints about his janitorial work
performance at NWS to his employer, Five Star.
2. Official Capacity Claims
To the extent that Plaintiff has alleged claims against Defendant Ringuette in her official
capacity, Plaintiff is alleging claims against the United States. See, Elder-Keep, 460 F.3d at 986.
“It is well settled that a Bivens action cannot be prosecuted against the United States and its
agencies because of sovereign immunity.” Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir.
1998) (citing Laswell v. Brown, 683 F.2d 261, 268 (8th Cir. 1982)).
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends GRANTING Defendant Ringuette’s
Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 84], to the extent the motion pertains to the claims against her in
her official capacity. Because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ringuette in her official
capacity fail as a matter of law at the outset, the Court recommends that the claims be
DISMISSED with prejudice. See, Davis, No. CIV. 05-4016, 2005 WL 1593050, at *1.
3. Retaliation
In order to demonstrate retaliation in violation of the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §
1983,
[Plaintiff] must show (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) the government
official took adverse action against him that would chill a person of ordinary
firmness from continuing in the activity, and (3) the adverse action was motivated
at least in part by the exercise of the protected activity.
Plaintiff argues that his operation of a website constituted protected First Amendment
activity and that Defendant Ringuette’s mention of that website to his employer, Five Star,
warrants the inference that her actions were motivated by his operation of the website. Even
assuming that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding those assertions in support of a First Amendment
51
retaliation claim are correct, Plaintiff’s allegations in his Amended Complaint fail to allege that
he suffered any adverse action at all by receiving delayed notification that he had been granted
security clearance or having Defendant Ringuette complain about his work performance to his
employer.17 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a First Amendment retaliation claim
against Defendant Ringuette.
4. Right to Contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
To successfully allege a claim of interference with the right to contract under 42 U.S.C. §
1981, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) membership in a protected class, (2) discriminatory intent on the
part of the defendant, (3) engagement in a protected activity, and (4) interference with that
activity by the defendant.” Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts to indicate that he is a member of a protected
class or that Defendant Ringuette acted with discriminatory intent.18 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
claim that Defendant Ringuette violated his right to contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 also fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
5. “Life, Liberty, and Property”
Plaintiff next asserts in a merely conclusory manner unsupported by any specific facts
that Defendant Ringuette’s actions violated his rights to “life, liberty, and property.” Construed
in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Ringuette violated his
17
Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations in his Amended Complaint indicate that it was Defendant Ringuette’s
supervisor and not Defendant Ringuette herself that made the call that resulted in the termination of Plaintiff’s
employment. As discussed above, Plaintiff cannot ground a claim against Defendant Ringuette on the acts of her
superior. See, Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056 (2014) (“[I]ndividual government officials ‘cannot be held liable’ in a
Bivens suit ‘unless they themselves acted [unconstitutionally].’” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 683)).
18
At most, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ringuette amount to a state law claim of tortious interference with
contract. See, Metge v. Cent. Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n, 649 N.W.2d 488, 500 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
(setting forth the elements of a Minnesota tortious interference with contract claim). A state law tort claim cannot
form the basis of a Bivens action. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (“The first step in any [Bivens]
claim is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.”).
52
rights to “life, liberty, and property” by making complaints that led to Plaintiff losing his
employment might arguably be an attempt to assert a claim that Defendant Ringuette violated his
rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment. See, U.S. Const. Amend. 5; Cleveland Bd. of
Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538 (1985) (noting that Due Process clause applies to claims
that a defendant violated a plaintiff’s constitutional property right to continued employment); see
also, Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 232 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[T]the Fourteenth Amendment
applies only to state actors, not federal actors.” (citing Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499
(1954)).
However, Plaintiff has alleged his due process claim in a conclusory manner unsupported
by any specific factual allegations. Conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts are
insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Ringuette violated his rights to “life, liberty,
and property” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
6. Equal Protection.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Ringuette’s actions violated his rights to equal
protection. Once more, as discussed above, Plaintiff does not assert that he is a member of
protected class and, as such, can only be construed to be alleging a “class of one” equal
protection claim. To allege a “class of one” equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to show: 1) that the state actor intentionally treated the plaintiff differently than
others who are similarly situated to the plaintiff; and 2) there was no rational basis for the
differential treatment. Barstad, 420 F.3d at 884.
53
Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations fail to allege the existence of any other individuals
who were similarly situated to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state an equal protection
claim against Defendant Ringuette.
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends GRANTING Defendant Ringuette’s
Defendant Ringuette in her individual capacity. Because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Ringuette in her individual capacity fail as a matter of law at the outset, the Court recommends
that the claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. See, Davis, No. CIV. 05-4016, 2005 WL
1593050, at *1.
IX. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, [Docket No.72]
Plaintiff moves the Court to enjoin Defendant City from collecting personal and
demographic information from him as part of an annual recertification for the housing assistance
that he receives, and to enjoin Defendant City from making any adverse changes to the amount
of housing assistance Plaintiff currently receives.
A. Facts
On November 4, 2014, the East Grand Forks EDHA, through which Plaintiff receives
housing assistance, notified Plaintiff that it needed to conduct an annual income review
appointment with him and asked him to complete an Annual Recertification Application Form
with information regarding his income, the ages of his children, and his childcare costs. (Pl.’s
Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 73], 11-19).
Plaintiff thereafter filed the present Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 72].
54
B. Standard of Review
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy . . . and the burden of establishing
the propriety of an injunction is on the movant.” Watkins, Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th
Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The purpose of issuing a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit is “to
preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on
the lawsuit's merits.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Dataphase
Sys., Inc., v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 & n. 5 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). “Thus, a party
moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Id. (citing Penn v. San
Juan Hosp., Inc., 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 1975)). A motion seeking a preliminary
injunction that is based on claims that are entirely different from the claims raised and the relief
requested in the lawsuit does nothing to preserve the court’s decision-making power over the
merits of the lawsuit. Id. As such, claims asserted in a motion for a preliminary injunction that
are entirely different from the claims raised or relief sought in a lawsuit cannot form the basis of
a preliminary injunction in that lawsuit. Id.
C. Analysis
Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the EDHA from obtaining his financial and
demographic information and making any adverse changes to the level of housing assistance he
receives from Defendant City, contending that Defendant City is likely to misuse any
information he provides.19 However, Plaintiff acknowledged at the motion hearing that the
EDHA’s request for information is solely for the purpose of recertifying Plaintiff’s eligibility for
19
Plaintiff also argues that he has received an order from the state courts of Minnesota declaring his financial
information confidential and prohibiting its disclosure. A review of the records Plaintiff submitted indicate that the
order to which Plaintiff refers is a protective order entered in an unrelated child support matter that prohibited
disclosure of Plaintiff’s financial information by the mother of one of Plaintiff’s children.
55
housing assistance and that Plaintiff has provided the EDHA with such information in the past.
(December 17, 2014, Motions Hearing, Digital Recording at 1:01 p.m.). Plaintiff’s housing
assistance is not an issue in the present case. As such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
either the disclosure of personal information that he asks the court to enjoin or the maintenance
of the level of housing assistance he currently receives will in any way affect the Court’s
decision-making authority over the claims now at issue before this Court.
Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the injunction he
seeks will preserve the Court’s decision-making authority over the claims at issue in the present
case, the Court recommends DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Docket
No. 72].
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. The City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment [Docket No.
13], be GRANTED as set forth above;
2. The County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 23], be GRANTED as set
forth above;
3. Defendant Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 32], be DENIED as moot;
4. Defendant Galstad’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment,
[Docket No. 54], be GRANTED, as set forth above;
5. Defendant LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 61], be GRANTED as set
forth above;
56
6. Defendant Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket
No. 84], be GRANTED as set forth above; and,
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief [Docket No. 72], be DENIED as set forth
above.
Dated: March 9, 2015 s/ Leo I. Brisbois

Leo I. Brisbois
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), any party may object to this Report and Recommendation
by filing with the Clerk of Court, and serving all parties by March 23, 2015 a writing that
specifically identifies the portions of the Report to which objections are made and the bases for
each objection. A party may respond to the objections by April 6, 2015. Written submissions by
any party shall comply with the applicable word limitations provided for in the Local Rules.
Failure to comply with this procedure may operate as a forfeiture of the objecting party’s right to
seek review in the Court of Appeals. This Report and Recommendation does not constitute an
order or judgment from the District Court, and it is therefore not directly appealable to the Court
of Appeals.
57

Timothy Charles Holmseth, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Plaintiff,
v.
Case Number: 14-2970 (DWF/LIB)
City of East Grand Forks, a municipal entity
in the state of Minnesota; Ronald Galstad,
city attorney for City of East Grand Forks,
in his official and individual capacity; Barb
Erdman, Sheriff of Polk County, Minnesota,
in her official and individual capacity; James
Richter, director of Economic Development
and Housing Authority (retired), in his
official and individual capacity; Michael
Hedlund, chief of police for City of East
Grand Forks, in his official and individual
capacity; David Murphy, adminsitrator for
the City of East Grand Forks,
in his official and individual capacity;
Rodney Hajicek, lieutenant detective at
East Grand Forks Police Department, in his
official and individual capacity; Aeisso
Schrage, police officer at East Grand Forks
individual capacity; Michael Lacoursiere,
public defender for Minnesota Public
Defender’s Office, in his official and
individual capacity; John Doe, in his/her
official and individual capacity; Jeanette
Ringuette, administrative assistant at the
Grand Forks National Weather Service
Office, in her official and individual
capacity; and Michael Norland, deputy
at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, in his
official and individual capacity,
Defendant(s).
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury
has rendered its verdict.
X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or
heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. Plaintiff Timothy Charles Holmsteth’s objections (Doc. No. [109]) to Magistrate Judge Leo I.
Brisbois’s March 9, 2015 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s March 9, 2015 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [107])
is ADOPTED.
3. The City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [13]) is
GRANTED.
4. The County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [23]) is GRANTED.
5. Defendant Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [32]) is DENIED.
6. Defendant Galstad’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [54])
is GRANTED.
7. Defendant LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [61]) is GRANTED.
8. Defendant Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [84]) is
GRANTED.
9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. [72]) is DENIED.
10. Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File Amended Motion and/or Supplement Motion (Doc. No.
[108]) is DENIED.
11. Plaintiff’s Request to Amend Original Complaint (Doc. No. [123]) is DENIED.
12. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.
13. Plaintiff is enjoined from submitting any further filings in this matter without first obtaining
leave of the Court to do so.
Date: 07/23/2015 RICHARD D. SLETTEN, CLERK

s/M. Price
(By) M. Price, Deputy Clerk
IN THE T'i\'ITED STATES DISTRICT COT'RT

DISTRICT OF MII\IIESOTA
TIMOTITY CHARLES HOLMSETH
PIaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-CV-2970
CITY OF EAST GRAND X'ORKS, a

municipal entity in the state of
ilfinnesota; RONALD GALSTAD, city
attorney for City of East Grand Forks, Deprivation of Rights
in his ofricial and individual capacity; (42 U.S.C. - 1e83)
BARB ERDMAN, Sheriffof PoIk
County, Minnesotan in her official and CTVIL RIGIITS
individual capacity; JAMES RICIITE&
director of Economic Development and
Ilousing Authority (retired), in his
IVtrCIIAEL HEDLIII{D, chief of police
for City of East Grand Forks, in his
official and indMdual capacity; DAVII)
MtlRPItYo administrator for the City of
East Grand Forkso in his official and
individual capacity; RODI\EY
IIAJICEK lieutenant detective at East
Grand X'orks Police Department, in his
offrcial and individual capacity; AEISSO
SCHRAGE' police officer at East Grand
tr'orks Police Department, in his official
.*g.qffi-
LACOIIRSIERE' public defender for
MII\IYESOTA PT]BLIC DEFEI\DER' S
OFFICE, in his official and individual
capacity; JOHN DOE, in his/her official
and individual capacity; JEAITiETTE
RINGIIETTE' administrative assistant
at the Grand Forks National Weather
Service Office, in her ofricial and
individual capacity; n/ilCIIAEL
NORLAI{D, deputy at the PoIk County
Sheriffs Officeo in his official and
Defendants.
${An 23 ?0t5 L-t7
I
v-
U,E. DFTRIET COTjRT MPLS
PETITIOI\ER'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE BRISBOISO REPORT AI\[D

RECOMMEI\DATION
****ib
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's finding that the domestic violence protection order,
that is operative in this case, and was obtained against Plaintitrin the Divorce
Division ofthe Broward County, Florida Court is a legitimate, constitutional
order.
2. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's finding of fact that the computer hard-drive seized
by the East Grand Forks Police Deparftrnent on Decembet L4,20l2,was
transferred to the Polk County SherifPs Office on December 15, 2012.
3. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's finding that Oefendant(s) did not violate Plaintiffs
4tr Amendment protections.
4. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's conclusion that Plaintiffs 4ft Amendment rights

weren't violated when Plaintiffs hard-drive was searched, because the Court does
not address secret searches at unknown locations for illegal purposes by unknown
persons.
5. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's conclusion that Plaintitrdid not make specific

allegations of a conspiracy.
6. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's conclusions that Plaintitrdid not allege a'meeting

of the minds' took place between defendants and/or conspirators.
7. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's decision to deny Plaintiffs MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE to view new evidence found on computer back-up files.
8. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's findings of dismissal.
**:t**
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS ET AL was filed because a

journalis! engaging in constitutionally protected activity, learned of organized criminal
activity occurring in multiple states, and, chilling and/or stopping the joumalist from
publishing the information was in the mutual best interest of all the collective actors, that
then conspired to commit acts forbidden by law to chill and/or stop the journalist from
exposing crimes.
Some of the aforementioned actors are named as defendants in this case.
Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT is a best effort, of a non-attorney, to allege,

describe, and present prima facie evidence of the conspiracy to violate his constitutional
rights.
Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT utilizes atimeline narrative, in a

STATEMENT OF FACTS, to chronologically demonstrate a conspiracy against Plaintiff
by actors already operating within a culture of accepted comrption.
Plaintiffcarefirlly provided the following information to the Court:
. Plaintiffs background as a reporter and author

. Plaintiffs constitutionally protected activities relevant to the lawsuit
. Defendants by name
. Co-conspirators by name
. Conspiratorial communicationsbetweenco-conspirators
. Illegal and/or tortuous activities of Defendants and co-conspirators
. Unity of purpose between co-conspirators
r Constitutional rights violated by Defendants
. Cause of Action
. Prayer for Relief
. Exhibits
OVERVIEW
To establish a custom or practice in the absence of aformal policy will usually require
proof of repeated incidents suggesting a pattern or practice. The existence of a
widespread practice can be so perrnanent and well-settled to constitute a custom or
usage with the force of law. 9. Id.
See, e.g., Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1387 (4th Cir. 1987) (Custom or usage has
force of law as "widespread practice" when "duration andfrequency of the practices
warrants afinding of either actual or constructive knowledge by the governing body [or
policymalrer with responsibilityfor oversight and supervisionJ that the practices have
become customary among its employees.")
The tulI body of inforrration contained in HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND

FORKS ET AL. supplied the Court with extensive evidence that Plaintiffwas the target
of conspirators operating in a comrpt municipality that moved seamlessly from one

illegal act to another in a hive mentality and instinctive fashion.
HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS ET AL was filed in United States

District Court in July, 2014.
obegan'
However, the deprivation of rights five years prior in 2009, when Plaintitr, a law
abiding citizen and award-winning newsp4per reporter first came onto the radar of the
comrpt agents of the local government.
1n2009, Lt. Detective Rodney Hajicek, the highest ranking officer at the East Grand
Forks Police Departrnent (EGFPD), improperly interjected himself into Plaintiffs
constitutionally protected activity as an investigative joumalist.
Plaintiffwas investigating and uniting about a missing child case that was active, via an
Amber Alert, in the state of Florida at the time. The case involved a five year-old girl
named Haleigh Cummings.
Hajicek became awaxe of Plaintiff 1n2009, after receiving multiple telephone calls from
an attorney from Florida named Kim Picazio, as well as her associate, Donna Wagoner.
Kim Picazio was the pro bono attomey handling media affairs for the mother of Haleigh
Cummings, and had granted several hours of recorded interviews with Plaintiffover the
telephone.
Kim Picazio originally wanted, desire4 and requested media exposure from Plaintiff. She
sent Plaintiffemails with long naratives about the kidnapping case, encouraged him to
write and call her, and repeatedly copied him on the internal email communications of
her law office, which included communications to her own client.
Kim Picazio and Donna Wagoner called the EGFPD after Plaintiffdiscovered through his
investigations and interviews, that Kim Picazio had been questioned by Florida law
enforcement per their suspicion she was involved in the child's kidnapping, and had
transported the missing child Haleigh Cummings across state lines.
Kim Picazio desired to enter into a media agreement with Plaintiff, because she knew
Plaintiffwas interviewing her private investigator, staffmembers, and family members of
the missing child that possessed information that incriminated her.
Kim Picazio and Donna Wagoner panicked when they learned Plaintitrdiscovered they
@onna Wagoner and Kim Picazio's husband, Michael Picazio) had digitatly altered a
photograph of the missing child and published it on a website they created to defraud the
American public out of money in an online missing child scam that ticked people into
thinking they were paying for searches ofthe missing child.
UNITY OF PURPOSE. T}IE MERGING OF TWO CRIMINAL ENTITIES INTO A

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
BOARDWALK ENTERPRISES & HALEIGH CUMMINGS KIDNAPPING
At the time Kim Picazio and her associates began calling Hajicek rn2009, and unknown
to the public until 2014, was the fact that East Grand Forks City Attomey Ronald
Galstad, EGF EDHA Director James Riclrter, and others, were quietly running out the ten
year statute of limitations on a loan-fraud money-laundering scheme involving funds they
had essentially stolen from the government in what would become known as the
Boardwalk Enterprises scandal.
The Boardwalk Enterprise scandal is a peripheral legal case running concurrent to

HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS ET AL.
The Boardwalk Enterprises scandal is an un-resolved matter that involves a separate law
firm (Kaler-Doeling, Fargo, ND) representing the City of East Grand Forks. Vogel Law
Fimr is representing Boardwalk Enterprises.
The Boardwalk Enterprises scandal, which is headlined regularly in the established

mainstream news, provides prima facie evidence that a culfure of comrption existed in
East Grand Forks, Minnesota, since at least the 1990's when the fraudulent loan-fraud
scheme was set up inthe wake of the devastating flood of the Red River.
In fac! the 10 year statute of limitations on the matter would have run out in October,
2014, if the scheme had not been exposed. The scheme was exposed because Plaintiff
reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor in December,20l3, and
requested an audit.
The following letter was published in the Grand Forks Herald on March 13,2015:
LETTER: Missing $510,000 demands a federal investigation
By Karry Kyllo on Mar 13,2015 at 4:00 a.m.
An accounting issue contributed to a $510,000 economic development loan going "npaid

for more than a decade in East Grand Forks, according to the city attomey," a Herald
story reported (March 10).
Really?
I find this whole story to be more and more unbelievable as it unfolds..
The $510,000 came to the city initially from federal Community Block Grant
Development monies. But after the crty received the firnds, the money just disappeared
without an entry on city books creating a loan fund? What about the entry that the city
had received the funds in the first place?
After all, records have to show that the crty received these funds before it could loan
them to Boardwalk Enterprises, or else the city would have had no funds to loan.
And then what about the $510,000 deficit after Boardwalk Enterprises received the
funds?
Are we supposed to believe the deficit just never showed up? The residents of East Grand
Forks aren't that narVe.
I'm not an accountant, but for a city the size of East Grand Forks to just lose track of
$510,000 is beyond belief. Every answer from the city just seems to dig a deeper hole.
Let's imagine that the city of East Grand Forks did, in fact, lose track of the $510,000.
Why didn't Boardwalk Enterprises ever contact the crty about repayment? Did the
company think it had just received a $510,000 grant?
Wouldn't Boardwalk Enterprises have contacted the city and asked about repayment
when the first payment was due, and the company hadn't been billed by the city?
And if the company's executives never contacted the city about repayment why didn't
they?
These were federal firnds that obviously have been mishandled. So, what is needed is a
federal investigation to answer the many questions that East Grand Forks residents have
about the circumstances surrotrnding the loan.
Karry Kyllo
East Grand Forks
-end letter-
The illegal activity occurring behind the scenes within the municipality of East Grand
Forks regarding Boardwalk Enterprises, made PlaintifPs joumalism project involving a
national profile missing child case that involved the FBI, a very unattractive situation to
the criminal actors within the municipality of East Grand Forks.
By the summer of 2014, evidence shows Plaintiffwas still the focus and perpetual target
of the municipality @ast Grand Forks) and its police deparhent (EGFPD), and was
being subjected to rights violations at such a colossal level that it can only be described as
ootganized'.
The epic scale of the terror campaign that had been launched against Plaintifl and his
children, reflects the very scale ofthe criminal activity Plaintiffs investigative journalism
had uncovered.
HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS ET AL. was filed in federal court to
combat, and seek relief from, the constitutional right violations that occurred so often,
within this one municipality, with no corrective measures taken, despite formal
complaints and attempts to stop the practice, that it was clearly a pattem that was
encouraged, nurtured, and accepted as completely normal.
Documents of record clearly show the rights violations and patterns of misconduct were
an accepted custom and policy, because those in the highest ranking meas of authority
and administration within the municipality repeatedly excused and embraced the
misconduct in writing.
ln somo instances, the ranking officers and administators would deshoy evidence, hide
documents, alter documents, anil or attempt to cover misconduct.
For instance,in2}l{,the director of the EGF Economic Housing and Development

Authority, James Richter, ordered housing specialist Kim Nelson, to shred address
verification forms she received from the United States Deparfinent of Commerce, which
was doing a employment background check on Plaintifffor his job in a federal facility.
Richter told Nelson she was not to respond to the request for information, which he knew
would eventually lead to Plaintiffs termination (if Plaintitrcould not passlcomplete the
federal security check).
Plaintiffasserts in his FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT that this action by Richter was
both retaliatory and shategic in nature, because Plaintiffwas the person that requested the
City of EGF be audited, vfuich ultimately led to the public exposure of the Boardwalk
Enterprises loan-fraud money-laundering scandal @ichter was forced to retire amidst this
scandal because of the role he played).
When Plaintifffiled a formal complaint against James Richter, EGF City Administrator
David Murphy investigated the complaint, and then falsely concluded that the address
ooerror".
verification fonn had been shredded in
In another instance, the chief of police, Michael Hedlun4 completely excused apolice
officer, Aeisso Schrage, from any wrong-doing, aftrr Schrage completely fabricated a
statement out of whole cloth, and athibuted itto Plaintiffin an official police report. The
police report was intended to be used to support a prosecution of Plaintiff. Schrage was
caught in the act, because Plaintiffhad a tape recorder running that proved Schrage made
the statement up and put quotation marks around it in a police report.
The prosecution that Schrage was buttressing with a false police report, was, according to
Attorney Michael LaCoursiere , part of aplan by the police to collectively lie in court
about Plaintifl and eventually have him put in St. Cloud State Prison (i.e. - frame
Plaintiff).
Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT features a myriad of similar violations that

resemble the aforementioned and details howthe comrpt members of the criminal
organtzrtion move seamlessly from one lie to another; one act of misconduct to another;
one act of evidence destructionto another; and it is abundantly clearthe criminal
organrzation exists and is an accepted policy and custom.
PLAINTIFF REQT]ESTS DISTIRCT JUDGE MODIFY MAGISTRATES

REPORT AND RECOMMEIIDATION
1. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's finding that the domestic violence protection

ordero that is operative in this caseo and was obtained against Plaintiffin the
I)ivorce Division of the Broward Countyo Florida Court is a legitimate,
constifutional order.
Plaintiffargues:
a. The Florida Court Order operative in this case, was fraudulently obtained
through a conspiracy between Kim Picazio, and Lt. Detective Rodney
Hajicek, Ronald Galstad, and other defendants.
b. The conspiracy was to violate the constitutional rights of Plaintifl who

was engaging in constitutionally protected activity.
c. No domestic relationship existed between Plaintitr, a resident of

Minnesota and Kim Picazio, a Florida resident.
d. There existed a well documented media relationship between Plaintiffand

Kim Picazio, and the 'domestic violence protection ordet' obtained
through a Florida Divorce Court was an illegal scheme to subvert the
judicial process.
e. State of Florida had/has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff.
f. Broward County Divorce Court had/has no jurisdiction over the subject

matter.
g. Plaintiffreceived death threats from the private investigator working for

Kim Picazio, warning that Plaintiffwould be murdered if he attended the
court hearing.
h. Plaintiffreported the death threats to Lt. Detective Rodney Hajicek and he

took no action whatsoever.
2. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's finding of fact that the computer hard-drive

seized by the East Grand Forks Police Department on l)ecember l4r20l2o
was transferred to the Polk County Sheriffs Office on l)ecember 15, 2012.
Plaintiffargues:
Exhibitive evidence submitted in support of the FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT, comprises any and all documentation in existence
pertaining to the hard-drive and its physical location after the December
14,2012, search and seizure; that documentation being:
Letter from EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund stating that

neither the East Grand Forks Police Departrnent nor the Polk
County Sheriffs Office k"pt aoy chain of evidence
documentation for the hard-drive after it was taken into police
custody and he has no further documents to provide.
Polk County Sheriff s Office Incident Report authored by Sgt.

Investigator Michael Norland created March 29,2013 that
contains no log or record of the hard-drive's physical
whereabouts until April 3, 2013.
Letter from Kristina Genereux, Polk County Sheriffs Office,

advising Plaintiffthe lncident Report is the only record the
Sheriffs Office has regarding the whereabouts of the hard-drive.
3. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's finding that Defendant(s) did not violate

Plaintif?s 4th Amendment protections.
Plaintiffargues:
j. Exhibits supporting the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT include a

search warrant signed by Honorable Remick on December 13, 20l2,that
reads inrelevant part,'o...TO SEZE THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY
AND THINGS, AND RETAIN TFMM IN CUSTODY SUBJECT TO
COURT ORDER AND ACCORDING TO LAW".
k. Defendants did not retain the seized items "SUBJECT TO COIJRT

ORDER" oT "ACCORDING TO LAW"
1. The hard-drive was seized by Officer Aeisso Schrage on December 14,

2012.
m. Exhibits supporting the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT include a letter

from EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund that says in part, "In this
situation neither our Department nor the Polk County Sheriffs Office
completed a chain of custodyform so unfortunately I do not hwe any
additional documents to providefor you".
Exhibits supporting the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT include a

SHERIFF'S REPORT from the Polk County Sheriffs Office authored by
Sgt. Investigator Michael Norland that shows Norland's very first official
entry ever made regarding Plaintiffs hard-drive is dated March 29,2013.
On March 29,20l3,Norland said in part"" On 03/29/2013 Iwas contacted

by Lt. Rodney Hajicekwith the East Grand Forks Police Department in
reference to a hard drive thatwas dropped offat our office by Offi,cer
Aeisso Schrage with the Pine-to-Prairie Task Force on 12/15/2012".
o The aforementioned entry by Sgt. Norland simply records

hearsay into a narrative. The alleged telephone call from Hajicek
to Norland is not a'1og' of evidence into an evidence locker and
should not be accepted as such. This is an attempt by co-
conspirators in a crime to create the 'illusion' of a paper trail that
creates the 'illusion' that the hard-drive was at the Sheriffs
Office - but it wasn't.
p. On April 27,2013, Norland made his second and final entry in the
Sheriffs Report. He said, "The hard drive that was given to rne to look at
was a Western Digital 500 GB with SN: WCA587169279. On 04/03/2013
I hook up the hard drive to a write blocker that was hooked up to my
forensic computer through a USB chord. I looked through the computer
and did not fi.nd anything that would show illegal activity on the computer.
I then shut the computer offand un-hooked the hard drive. I later returned
the cell phones and hard drive to Officer Schrage. I was later asked to
image the hord drive. I again received the hard drive on 04/22/2013. I
was in the process of imaging the hord drive and did not get a chance to
image this hard drive. On 04/26/2013 I was again contacted by Officer
Schrage that there was a court orderfor all the property to be returned to
the suspect in their cose. The hard drive was returned to Officer Schrage.
End of Report. Closed."
q. Exhibits supporting the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT include a

screenshot of the seized computer's Administrator log that was captured
by Plaintiffafter the computer was returned and briefly operated. The
Administrator log shows the computer was activated on l2l28ll2.
I2II3II2 - SEARCH WARRANT OBTAINED BY OFFICER AEISSO

SCHRAGE
I2II4II2 - COMPUTER AND HARD DRryE SEIZED
I2nsn2 - HARD-DRTVE (ALLEGEDLYICONTESTED BY PLAINNTIFF)
DROPPED OFF AT THE POLK COUNTY SIMRIFF'S OFFICE
I2I28II2 _ COMPUTER IS TURNED ON AS PROVEN BY
ADMINISTRATOR LOG
O 06N9N3 _ SGT. MICHAEL NORLAND MAKES HIS FIRST EVER ENTRY

REGARDING TI{E HARD.DRTVE
O A4127113 _ SGT. MICHAEL NORLAND RETROACTWELY DOCUMENTS
TIIAT I{E SEARCHED THE HARD DRTVE ON O4l03/13
O4I27II3 _ SGT. MICHAEL NORLAND RETROACTTVELY DOCUMENTS
TIIAT I{E GAVE TI{E HARD DRIVE BACK TO OFFICER AEISSO
SCHRAGE, AND T}IEN SCHRAGE RETTIRNED WITH IT AGAIN ON
04naB
O4N7N3 _ SGT. MICHAEL NORLAND RETROACTTVELY DOCUMENTS
THAT FIE RETURNED THE TIARD.DRTVE TO AEISSO SCHRAGE.
r. The aforementioned timeline demonstrates how the computer/hard-drive

was inexplicably activated on December 280 2012. The exhibits and
timeline prove beyond any doubt that neither the Polk County Sheriffs
Office or the East Grand Forks Police Deparbnent log any agent of their
respective Department activating the computer.
The exhibits and timeline further demonsftate that no employee of the

Polk County Sheriffls Office logs the harddrive into evidence on
December 15,2012. No employee sra-tes they ever saw the hard-drive on
December 15,2012. No employee states they ever saw or touched the
hard-drive between December 15,2012 and April 3,2013.It wasn't really
there.
t. Additionally - Sgt.Norland does not 1og physical possession of the hard-

drive until April 3, 2013. His mere mention of it, based upon an alleged
phone call from Hajicek, does not substitute for'chain of evidence'
documentation.
u. Between December 14,2012, and April 3,2013, there is absolutely NO

RECORD of the whereabouts of Plaintiffs hard-drive.
v. The following is from the Office of the Minnesota State Auditor:

Published material by the Office of Minnesota State Auditor Rebecca Otto shows
standards for evidence retention and evidence rooms.
Office of the State Auditor - Best Practice Review - Property and Evidence Room
Policies and Procedure Manuals
FACILITY/SECURITY - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to limit access to

the property and evidence room storage areas to authorized personnel.
STAFFING - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to assign sufficient and

qualified personnel to manage the properly and evidence room.
PACKAGING - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to establish package

requirements ttrat protect items from cross contamination and prevent loss of evidentiary
value while permitting efficient storage and retrieval.
STORAGE - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to store all property and
evidence in the property and evidence room so as to protect the property and evidence
from loss, damage, or contamination; to maintain the property's evidentiary value; and to
minimize safety hazards, while permitting efficient storage, inventory, and retieval.
DOCUMENTATION - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to maintain

documentation that tracks the chain of custody and the location of property, and records
property and evidence room entries and the authorized disposition of property.
DISPOSITION of PROPERTY - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to dispose

of items held in the property and evidence room in a legal and timely manner.
REVIEWS and AUDIT - It is the policy of (law enforcement agency) to perform

reviews/audits of the property and evidence room to determine compliance with
established policies and procedures.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Court's conclusionthat Plaintiffs 4tr Amendment

rights weren't violated when Plaintiffs hard-drive was searched because the
Court does not address secret searches at unknown locations for illegal
purposes.
Plaintiffargues:
w. Plaintiffneed not address any 'legal' search of the hard-drive by'law

enforcement' at a 'known location' wittrin the walls of law enforcement
for purposes stated in the Search Warrant.
x. Plaintiffis addressing an oillegal' search(s) of the hard-drive by

ounknown locationo for pu{poses
'unknown person(s)t at an 'not' stated
in the Search Warrant.
y. Plaintiffargues the hard-drive was illegally searched at an unknown

location over a period of several months with no record kept, by unknown
person(s) searching and/or examining Plaintiff s investigative jourralism
work-product regarding the Boardwalk Enterprises scandal and/or
Haleigh Cummings kidnapping.
z. Plaintiffargues that while the illegal searches were being performed, his
Pro Se legal work product was compromised, HIPPA protected documents
were viewed. etc.
5. Plaintiffobjects to the Courtos conclusion that Plaintiffdid not make specitic

allegations of a conspiracy.
Plaintiffargues:
aa.InPlaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, under FIRST CLAIM

OTHE
FOR RELIEF, FLORIDA DTVORCE COURT SCHEME" LiNC
l42,Plaifiiffstates, "September 2011 - Rodney HajicekCONTINUED to
assist Kim Picazio in their mutual attempts to deprive plaintiffof his
rights, which originally began in 2009. Rodney Haiicek assisted Kim
Picazio in her bid tofroudulently obtain a domestic violence protection
order against Plaintiffrom a Floridq divorce court. Haiicek assisted
Picazio by willfully, with malice andforethought, depriving Plaintiffof
public records that proved Plaintiff (who had never personally met Kim
Picazio) was innocent of the ridiculous allegations betng made by Picazio
in a divorce court on the other side of the United States. Hajicek
deliberately withheld police reports and records from Plaintiffthat proved
Kim Picazio never made the occusations about Plaintiffto the EGFPD,
which she subsequently mqde to a Florida divorce courtiudge".
bb. In Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, under FIRST CLAIM

FOR RELIEF, 'T[IE FLORIDA DTVORCE COURT SCFIEME'thc
following Defendants are personally named:
1) Ronald Galstad
2) Rodney Hajicek
3) Michael LaCoursiere
4) Aeisso Schrage
cc. InPlaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, under FIRST CLAIM
FOR RELIEF' 'TTIE FLORIDA DWORCE COURT SCIIEME' it says,
"Plaintiffhereby re-alleges and incorporates all actions taken by
Defendant(s) as setforth in the Statement af Facts regarding the Florida
Divorce Court Scheme and all subsequent acts by Defendnnts to violate
Plaintiffs rights".
dd. Under Statement of Facts, Section J, it says, "DEFENDANTS ASSIST

AND COORDINATE WITH ATTORNEY KIM PICAZIO TO VIOI}ITE
PIAINTIFF'S CIVIL RIGHTS _ THE FLORIDA DIVORCE SCHEME''
* Plaintiffargues there is nothing ambiguous about

this language used to describe conspiratorial
oocoordinate"
activities, that actually uses the word
ee. In Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Plaintiffprovidedthe

Court detailed times, places, facts, circumstances, and supporting
documents, that established communications, coordination, planning, and

tandem acts had taken place between the conspirators - including co-
conspirator Rodney Hajicek - as shown below under PLAINTFF
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BETWEEN DEFENDANT HAIICEK AND
OTHERS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ff. Plaintiffprovided the Court evidence that showed defendants had 'unity of
purlrose' with Kim Picazio, and conspired to commit an 'act condemned
by law'.
gg. Plaintiffprovided the Court evidence to show there was 'common design
and understanding among conspirators to accomplish the objects of the
conspiracy'.
hh. Plaintitrmet the burden of proof estbblishing that a conspiracy to violate

his constitutional rights was agreed upon by two or more persons, and
subsequently executed.
ii. To prove a 42 U.S.C 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiffmust show: (1)

that the defendant conspired with others to deprive him of constitutional
rights; (2)that at least one ofthe alleged co-conspirators engaged in an
overt act of furtherance of the conspiracy, and (3) that the overt act rnjured
the PlaintiffAskewv. Millerd 191 F.3d 953,957 (8th Cir.1999). The
plaintiffis additionally required to prove a deprivation of a constitutional
right or privilege in order to prevail on a 1983 civil conspiracy claim.
that these elements were satisfied.
jj. 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and
operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintifffrom an act
or acts done in furtherance ofthe common design. . . . In such an action
the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact thatitrenders each
participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all
damages ensuing from the wtonBr irrespective of whether or not he was a
direct actor and regardless of the degree of his activity." @octors' Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 49 Ca1.3d M, citrng Mox Incorporated v. Woods
(1927) 202 CaL. 67 5, 677 -78.)' (Id. at 5 1 1.)
that these elements were satisfied.
kk. 'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes
liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort
themsslves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design
in its perpehation. By participation in a civil consprasy, a coconspirator
effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within
the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort
liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors. Standing alone, a
conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tort liability. It must be
activated by the commission of an actual tort. "A civil consptracy,
however atocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a
civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage."'A bare agreement
among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot rnjure the latter
unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement.
Therefore, it is the acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which
should be regarded as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its
nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the
coconspirator is legally capable of committing the tort i.e., that he or she
owes a duty to plaintiffrecognized by law and is potentially subject to
liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi
Arabia Ltd., supr4 7 Cal. that 5 l0-1 1.)
PLAINTFT' ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BETWEEN DEFf,I\DAIIT HAJICEK

AIID OTIIERS IN FIRST AMEI{DED COMPLAINT
ooare
The Magistrate found Plaintiffs allegations not suffrcient to show that fHajicek]
came to a meeting of the minds with anyone to violate PlaintifPs constitutional rights".
Plaintiffhereby argues he did in fact supply very strong and credible evidence that tended
to show ameeting of the minds tookplace.
. Hajicek received telephone calls from Kim Picazio, and her business associate,
Donna Wagoner, wherein Picazio and Wagoner complained about Plaintiffs
publishing
. Hajicek recorded in a police incident report that the reports were civil in nature,
and not criminal
r Despite Hajicek logging his knowledge that no criminal activity was taking place,
Hajicek chose to act as a personal agent for Wagoner when he telephonically
contacted Plaintiffat her behest as a personal favor, and told Plaintiffthat
Wagoner, and the company she works for, Xentel, IDC., didn't want Plaintiffto
write anything about their company. He also relays information to Plaintiffon
behalf of Kim Picazio
Picazio
Plaintiffwas writing about a photoshopped picture of a kidnapped child named

Haleigh Ann-Marie Cummings that had passed right thrcugh Wagoner's email
account at Xentel, Inc.
Emails show Hajicek then began communications with Art Harris, Kim Picazio's
media consultant (Harris was Kim Picazio's media consultant according to Kim
Picazio herself in a Bar complaint that was filed against her by Crystal Sheffield,
mothero missing child Haleigh Cummings)
Harris lamented to Hajicek in email that the FBI in Florida was acting on leads
from Plaintiffregarding a photoshopped picture of the kidnapped child Haleigh
oohe's
Cummings and said got to be stopped"
ln his email to Hajicelq Harris referred to Donna Wagoner as his friend of many
years
Language in the emails between Harris and Hajicek clearly shows conversations
were taking place that involved assistance that Hajicek was attempting to give
Harris, Wagoner, and Picazio -however- Hajicek had already stated in an
incident report that Plaintiffhad committed no crime
Hajicek committed premeditated acts of obstruction, document destruction, and

evidence tampering in effort to conceal his acts of conspiracy
AND/OR TAMPERING BY IIAICEK
Emails obtained by records request by Plaintitrfrom the Polk County Attorney's

Office revealed all the emails between Hajicek and Haris, which Hajicek records
that he sent to the Polk County Attomey, were missing Hajicek's portion of the
conversation (which had been deliberately edited out) which shows Hajicek was
already obstructing justice and concealing his actions and statements in the
sunrmer of 2009
DESTRUCTION, AND/OR TAMPERING BY HAIICEK
In the surlmer of 2A11, co-conspirator Kim Picazio called the EGFPD to

complain about Plaintiffafter Plaintiffpublished a Western Union money tansfer
form he received from Susan Earman, Virginia. Earman was a fraud victim that
had given Kim Picazio $8,000, believing it would be used in regards to the
Haleigh Cummings investigation. The $8,000 was deposited in Kim Picazio's
Wachovia bank account, which was written on the Westem Union tansfer form.
The police incident report said the telephone call from Kim Picazio wzrs recorded
and given to Lt. Hajicek.
o When Plaintiffrequested the recording of the call,

EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund told Plaintiff
the recording had been destroyed
o Exhibitive evidence filed in this case shows

Plaintiff obtained police incident reports regarding
Kim Picazio's call to the police. Plaintiffobtained
two separate copies, from diflerent sources, at
different times. One police report from the EGFPD
was missing the sentence that mentioned Hajicek
and the recording of the call by Kim Picazio
AND/OR TAMPERING BY HAIICEK
r fu 2011, co-conspirator Kim Picazio frled for a domestic violence protection order
against Plaintiffin the divorce (DVCE) division of the Broward County Family
Courts. The petition was fraudulent on its face because there is/was no domestic
relationship between Kim Picazio and Plaintiff. The petition was filed for the
express purpose of violating Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights.
o Responding to the petition filed by Kim Picazio,

Plaintiffmade three separate requests for police
incident reports to the East Grand Forks Police
Departrnent. The police incident reports would
easily have shown the Florida judge that the petition
filed by Kim Picazio wzts baseless and fraudulent.
Plaintifffilled out the proper form and submitted it
to the officer at the window at the police station.
Plaintiffalso contacted Hajicek by email and
requested the reports. Hajicek refused to respond to
the records request or turn over the records. The
EGFPD, PCSO, and John Doe subsequently
disabled Plaintiffs hard-drive that contained the
emails.
DEF'EI\DAIIT CITY / DEFEFIDAITT COT]NTY
DEMONSTRATING OBSTRUCTION BY AND/OR FOR THE

BENEFIT OF HAJICEK
r As previously stated, Defendant(s) disabled Plaintiffs computer hard-drive,

which contained tens ofthousands of emails
Contained in the emails is evidence in the form of emails authored by Kim

Picazio, wherein she boasts about her relationship with Hajicek
Contained in the emails is evidence that Plaintiffrequested records from the City
and was ignored by Hajicek
Plaintiffobjects to the Court's conclusions that Plaintiffdid not allege a

omeeting of the mindso took place between defendants and/or conspirators.
7. Plainffiobjects to the Courtns decision to deny PlaintifPs MOTION FOR

CONTII\UAIICE to view new evidence found on computer back-up files
Plaintiffargues:
ll. Plaintiffalleged in his FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, that after the

EGFPD seized PlaintifPs hard-drive, police and/or government employees
and/or unknown person(s) illegally privately viewed the constitutionally
protected contents of an investigative j ournalists, and pro se litigant' s,
work product, located on the hard-drive, at some unknown location, not
within the walls of law enforcement before disabling the hard-drive (and
computer processor), permanently.
mm. The hard-drive in question contained thousands of files of great

evidentiary consequence, which had been gathered by an investigative
journalist (Plaintitrl for nearly three years during investigations and
reporting on a child kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and money-
laundering cases.
nn. In Jaly,2014, Plaintifffiled a complaint in the United States District Court

against the defendants in HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND
FORKS ET AL. Plaintiffwas essentially forced to proceed with the
deprivation of rights lawsuit with whatever documents and evidence he
could locate that was not marooned on the crippled hard-drive.
oo. Plaintiffwas forced to reconstruct the facts that occurred over a period of
five years; mostly by memory. Plaintiffs email system that contained tens
of thousands of emails was not available to Plaintiffbecause of the
malicious and illegal actions of Defendant(s).
pp. In the fall of 2014, by pure happen-chance, Plaintifflocated a back-up

folder that contained much of his lost journalism content. It was the pure
luck result of Plaintifftraveling nearly 400 miles to his parent's home
town for a wedding, whereupon his parents gave him an old computer
tower/processor with which he could use to view some old hard-drives he
possessed.
qq. On November 2I,2014, Plaintitrfiled a Motion for Continuance and

asked the Court for time to exarnine and view all the files he unexpectedly
located.
tT. Work-product and investigative content in the back-up files was

invaluable to reconstructing the timeline, facts, and rights violations
visited upon Plaintiffby Defendants in this case.
The MOTION was denied by the Magistate.
The Magistate's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION does not

mention Plaintiffs MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE in the Background
section of the REPORT.
uu. The Magistrate's denial of Plaintiffs motion was not in the interest of
justice, and contradicts the Magistrate's stated logic behind most of the
findings and conclusions inthe REPORT.
w. The basis for Plaintifif s MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE was to

examine, study, and subsequently submit as supporting evidence, facts
known, and believed to be, contained, amongst the troves of files that were
unexpectedly found on the backup files.
ww. The back-up folder contained duplicate files that had been
marooned and/or destroyed on Plaintiffs computer hard-drive, which
Plaintiffasserts, was deliberately damaged anilor rendered inoperable by
Defendant(s) while it was in police custody.
>or. Plaintiffs orisinal COMPLAINT is based, in part, upon the allegation,

that Defendants violated Plaintitrs rights when Defendant City seized
Plaintiffs computer; kept no chain of evidence log; allowed Defendant
John Doe to illegally view the contents of the hard-drive at his/lrer/their
leisure at an unknown location; possibly copied the hard-drive; and then
deliberately rendered the computer hard-drive inoperable.
yy. The Magistrate's denial of Plaintiffs MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE,

conflicts with the Magistrate's stated logic behind granting Defendant's
Motions because, all throughout, the Magistrate references and relies upon
phrases such as "conclusory assertions" "generic conclusory statements"
ooconclusory
"generically and conclusorily alleged" marmer un-supported
by specific facts" and repeatedly speaks of lack of evidence given by
Plaintiff.
zz. Plafuftiff respectfully argues that any evidentiary shortcomings in the

original COMPLAINT and FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT was the
result of Plaintiffs entire filing system (hard-drive) betng disabled by

defendant(s).
aaa. It would further stand to reason that any massive storage backup of
duplicate files would have benefited Plaintiffwhile drafting the original
COMPLAINT.
bbb. Plaintifffurther argues it is not reasonable to expect a person; a

non-attorney; single parent; that cannot afford an attorney; to memorize
five consecutive years of names, dates, times, events, activities, specific
violationso subtleties, and little pieces of information while drafting a
complaint to be submitted in compliance with a legal format (Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure) that requires many years of university education
for licensed attomeys to actually learn.
ccc. Plaintifffurther argues the Magistate's required level of proof is

excessive, and exasperated by the fact Plaintiffhas not yet been allowed
Discovery.
ddd. The Magishates decisionto deny Plaintiffs MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE was not reasonable in light of the fact that troves of
evidence supporting Plaintiffs COMPLAINT were contained in the back-
up folders.
eee. The Magistrate's denial ofthe MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

overshadows this entire case because it barred new evidence.
8. Plaintiffobjects to the Court's frndings of dismissal
I\[EW EVIDENCE
New evidence has been obtained bv Plainffifrom a former East Grand Forks Police
Officer.
Gary Deitz, East Grand Forks, telephoned Plaintiffon March 15,2015.
Plaintitrdid not know Gary Deitz before March 15,2015.
Deitz said he personally eye-wihessed horrendous police abuse, comrption, and serious
criminal activity within the EGFPD that had been reported as far back as the 1980's.
Deitz said he reported it to the FBI and Minnesota Attorney General's office long ago.
Dei'z said he has documents and recordings to support his allegations and assertions.
Deitz. said he has information about local government officials involved in unsolved
murders, drug trafficking, savage abuse of prisoners, and destruction of evidence.
Deitz said he has audio evidence of Lt. Rodney Hajicek, admitting that he witnessed a
police officer, Curt Ellingson, slarn a hand-cuffed prisoners head against the wall
multiple times. Deitzsaid Hajicek is captured on the audio stating he will deny what he
admits he witnessed if questioned about it by investigators.
Hajicek is named as a defendant in HOLMSETH V. CITY OF EAST GRAND FORKS

ET AL.
Plaintiffreceived the telephone call after the filing of the FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, and after the submission of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
by the Magistrate.
On March 20,2015, Plaintitrfiled REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

MOTION AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION.
Respectfully submitted,
Pro Se
Timothv Charles Hohnseth

320 n6 Street N.W.
Urrrt# 17
s6721
218.773.1299
218.230.1597 (ce11)
www.writeintoaction. com
J"''n',d}
I
$r{r+ffi---
V arcL, )1, 5
ô/

Timothy Charles Holmseth, Civil File No. 0:14-CV-2970 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,
vs. DEFENDANT MICHAEL
LACOURSIERE’S RESPONSE TO
City of East Grand Forks, et al., PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE BRISBOIS’
Defendants. REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Michael LaCoursiere (“State Defendant”) submits this Response to
Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Brisbois’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 107).
State Defendant respectfully request the Court overrule Plaintiff’s objections and adopt
the Report and Recommendation’s dismissal with prejudice of all claims against State
Defendant.
ARGUMENT
The Court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.2(b).
Plaintiff did not file a brief in response to State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
and has not filed any objections specific to the legal conclusions reached in the Report
and Recommendation on dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against State
Defendant. See Minn. L. R. 72.2(b).
The Report and Recommendation applied well-established legal principles in
dismissing the claims against State Defendant because: (1) the Eleventh Amendment
barred Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages claims against State Defendant in his official
capacity; and (2) under Polk County v. Dodson, a public defender is not a person acting
under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 107) at 45-48.
Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff intended to allege a conspiracy involving State
Defendant, the Report and Recommendation clearly set forth why the facts did not
support such a claim. Id. at 40-41 (citing cases in support of defense counsel’s duty to
communicate prosecution’s position and noting contrary facts in Plaintiff’s
representations).
Plaintiff’s objections have not identified any facts or law contrary to the Report
and Recommendation’s conclusions and recommendations for dismissal of the claim
against State Defendant. Likewise, because Plaintiff’s proposal to amend his complaint
does not include any additional facts or allegations involving State Defendant, any such
attempt would be futile as against State Defendant. Pompoalii v. Correctional Med. Svcs,
512 F.3d 488, 497 (D. Minn. 2008) (holding that a district court “may properly deny a
party’s motion to amend its complaint when such an amendment would . . . be futile.”);
See also Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008)
(“[G]ranting leave to amend a complaint where the plaintiff has not submitted a proposed
amendment is inappropriate.”)
2
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Defendant Michael LaCoursiere respectfully requests the
Court overrule Plaintiffs’ objections and adopt Magistrate Judge Brisbois’ Report and
Recommendation dismissing all claims against him with prejudice.
Dated: April 6, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of Minnesota
s/ Alethea M. Huyser
ALETHEA M. HUYSER
Assistant Attorney General
Atty. Reg. No. 0389270
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2128
(651) 757-1243 (Voice)
(651) 296-1410 (TTY)
ATTORNEY FOR STATE DEFENDANT
3
IN THE TJMTED STATES DISTRICT COT]RT

DISTRICT OF MIhIhTESOTA
TIMOTHY CEARLES HOLMSETH

otgR{'.û,*:\
Plaintiff,
v. CIYIL ACTION NO: 14-CV-2970
CITY OX'EAST GRAI\D FORKS, A

municipal entity in the state of
Minnesota; RONALD GALSTAD, city
attorney for City of East Grand Forks' Deprivation of Rights
in his ofricial and individual capacity; (42 U.S.C. - le$i)
BARB ERDMAN, Sherifrof Polk
Count5r, Minnesota, in her ofricial and CTVIL RIGHTS
individuat capacity; JAMES RICHTO&
director of Economic Ilevelopment and
Housing Authority (retired), in his
ofricial and individual capacity;
MICHAEL HEDLIIND, chief of police
for City of East Grand Forkso in his
official and individual capacify; DAYII)
MIJRPHY, administrator for the City of
East Grand Forkso in his official and REQIIEST FORLEAVE TO FILE
individual capacity; RODI\IEY AMEIYDED MOTION AI{D/OR
HAJICEK lieutenant detective at East SIJPPLEMENTAL MOTION
Grand Forhs Police Department, in his
ofricial and individual capacity; AEISSO
SCHRAGE, police ofricer at East Grand
Forks Police Department, in his official
I"ACOURSERE, pubHc defender for
MII{NESOTA PUBLIC DEFEI\DER'S
OF['ICE, in his ofricial and indMdual
capacity; JOHN DOE, in his/her official
and individual capacity; JEAITIETTE
RINGUETTE, administrative assistant
at the Grand Forks National lVeather
Service Office, in her ofricial and
individual capacity; MICHAEL
NORLAIID, deputy at the Polk County
Sheriffs Office, in his ofricial and
Defendants.
MEMORAI{DUM
L INTRODUCTION
On March 9, 2015,tfre Magistrate issued a REPORT AI'{D RECOMMENDATION to

Honorable Donovan Frank.
Upon receipt ofthe REPORT, Plaintiffbegan to review the REPORT, and then formulate
an OBJECTION in response to be zubmitted to Honorable Frank.
Plaintiffs RESPONSE is still being prepared and will be mailed Saturday, March 21,
z}ls,to reach the federal courthouse by the deadline of March 23,2A15.
IL STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, and oral testimony and argument before
the Court, alleged Defendant Ciry as wellas individual officers and public offrcials
named as defendants in their individual capacity, were engaging in a pattern and practice
of comrption that violated federal law and rezulted in the violation ofPlaintiff s
Plaintiffalleged that the pdtern and practice of comrption was so deeply engrained that it
had become accepted as an un-written policy. Plaintiffalleged it was within this accepted
culture that Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated.
Plaintiffnow request the Court allow the following be considered" as the following was
not available to Plaintiffat the time ofthe filing of the orignal complaint.
l. On March 13,2Als,Plaintiffreceived a telephone call from GaryDeitz,67, East

Grand Forks, Minnesota.
2. Mr. Deitz asked if l(Timothy Charles Holmseth) was the one writing about the
East Grand Forks Police Department on the Web.
3. Mr. Deitz said he was a police officer for the East Grand Forks Police Department
for 15 yeaf,s.
4. Plaintiffhad never met or spokento Mr. Detl.r. ever. Plaintitrhad no knowledge

ofMr. Deitz's story or experiences. Plaintiffand Mr. Dertzwere complete
strangers.
5. Mr. Deitz said he had personally witnessed police comrption and prisoner abuse
at the East Crrand Forks Police Department.
6. Mr. Deitz said he had knowledge of drugtrafrcking and un-solved murders.

7. Ivft. Deitz said he had audio ofl-t. Detective Rodney llajicek discussing the
savage beating of a handcuffed prisoner's head agpinst a cement wall, which
Ilajicek admits he witnessed. He said llajicek vov/s he will deny what he
witnessed if questioned by investigators. Mr. Deitz said he gave Hajicek a copy of
the audio long ago.
8. Mr. Deitz said he witnessed destruction of evidence during tle same violent went
or prisoner abuse that involved Hajicek He said there were ssven officers present
that niglrt.
9. Hajicek is named as defendant in this case.
10. Mr. DeLtz said he had turned information into the FBI and Minnesota Attorney
General.
11. N{r. Dekz said he was asked for a list of names and zubsequently provided 15-20
names.
l2.Mr.Deitz said there is presently a known murderer that is fre because the
comrption is so deeply engrained and the murderer is well established in the
community.
THE COI]RT SHOI]LD GRAIIT PLAINTtrT'LEAYE TO X'ILE A

SUPPLEMnNTAL COMPLNNT, OR ALTERNATTVELY, Al[ AMEI{DEn
COMPII\INT
Plaintiffhas not had ample opporhmityto further investigatethe full body of information
received by Mr.Deitz.
The alleged facts set forth by Mr. Deitz began to occur long before Plaintiffever came
into the jurisdiction or contact with the defendants.
The alleged facts set forth by NIr. Deitz constitute prima facie evidence that Plaintiffs
allegations regarding comrption as an establishd custom orpolicy was entirely accrrate.
Plaintiffrequests the Court's permission to file an Amended Complaint andlor

Supplemental Complaint, purzuant to Rule 15.
Respectfully zubmitted,
Pro Se : O!@ !e tuBnu€l
I Il!
salrctr3 uorBerulu.rog
(
\\^*S Ab&4d--
vrosnrun-lrsnaluvroi
(vv v38vutlnd x Aoof
Mard )d ) ao,5
fuffi
/^s/-/?
tl
eArl'"
)/q

Timothy Charles Holmseth, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Plaintiff,
v.
Case Number: 14-2970 (DWF/LIB)
City of East Grand Forks, a municipal entity
in the state of Minnesota; Ronald Galstad,
city attorney for City of East Grand Forks,
in his official and individual capacity; Barb
Erdman, Sheriff of Polk County, Minnesota,
in her official and individual capacity; James
Richter, director of Economic Development
and Housing Authority (retired), in his
official and individual capacity; Michael
Hedlund, chief of police for City of East
Grand Forks, in his official and individual
capacity; David Murphy, adminsitrator for
the City of East Grand Forks,
in his official and individual capacity;
Rodney Hajicek, lieutenant detective at
East Grand Forks Police Department, in his
official and individual capacity; Aeisso
Schrage, police officer at East Grand Forks
individual capacity; Michael Lacoursiere,
public defender for Minnesota Public
Defender’s Office, in his official and
individual capacity; John Doe, in his/her
official and individual capacity; Jeanette
Ringuette, administrative assistant at the
Grand Forks National Weather Service
Office, in her official and individual
capacity; and Michael Norland, deputy
at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, in his
official and individual capacity,
Defendant(s).
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury
has rendered its verdict.
X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or
heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. Plaintiff Timothy Charles Holmsteth’s objections (Doc. No. [109]) to Magistrate Judge Leo I.
Brisbois’s March 9, 2015 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s March 9, 2015 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [107])
is ADOPTED.
3. The City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [13]) is
GRANTED.
4. The County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [23]) is GRANTED.
5. Defendant Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [32]) is DENIED.
6. Defendant Galstad’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [54])
is GRANTED.
7. Defendant LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [61]) is GRANTED.
8. Defendant Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [84]) is
GRANTED.
9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. [72]) is DENIED.
10. Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File Amended Motion and/or Supplement Motion (Doc. No.
[108]) is DENIED.
11. Plaintiff’s Request to Amend Original Complaint (Doc. No. [123]) is DENIED.
12. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.
13. Plaintiff is enjoined from submitting any further filings in this matter without first obtaining
leave of the Court to do so.
Date: 07/23/2015 RICHARD D. SLETTEN, CLERK

s/M. Price
(By) M. Price, Deputy Clerk

PLACEHOLDER FOR
Pg. 14 Filed Under Seal
Plaintiff(s)
v. Case Number: 14-cv-2970 (DWF/LIB)
City of East Grand Forks, et al.,
Defendant(s)
This document is a place holder for the following item(s) which are filed in conventional or
physical form with the Clerk's Office:
[list item(s) for which this notice serves as a placeholder in ECF]

(e.g.: Exhibit A - Photo of Airplane)
If you are a participant in this case, this filing will be served upon you in conventional format.
This filing was not e-filed for the following reason(s):
___ Voluminous Document* (Document number of order granting leave to file conventionally: ___ )
___ Unable to Scan Documents (e.g., PDF file size of one page larger than 15MB, illegible when scanned)
___ Physical Object (description):
___ Non Graphical/Textual Computer File (audio, video, etc.) on CD or other media
___ Item Under Seal pursuant to a court order* (Document number of protective order: ___ )
___ Item Under Seal pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1
(Document number of redacted version: ___ )
__X_ Other (description): Pg. 14 filed under seal per Mag. Judge Leo I. Brisbois
* Filing of these items requires Judicial Approval.
E-file this place holder in ECF in place of the documents filed conventionally. File a copy of this
Placeholder and a copy of the NEF with the Clerk's Office along with the conventionally filed item(s).
forms\cmecf\convfilingplchldr.doc Form Updated 07/29/05


Binder 8

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Binder 8

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 11 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETII

v. CIVI ACTION NO: 1.4-CV-2970

I. PLAINTIF'F'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

3. Plaintiffbrings this action resulting from damages incurred as result ofbeing

5. At all time relevant hereto, PlaintiffTIMOTHY HOLMSETH, has been a resident

8. Defendant, MICHAEL NORLAND , at alltimes relevant hereto, was a Polk

g. Defendant, MICHAEL HEDLUND ,atalltimes relevanthereto, was the EAST

RODNEY HAJICEK, at all times relevant hereto, was an EAST

14. Defendant, MICHAEL LACOURSIERE, at all times relevant hereto, was an

16. Defendant, JOHN DOE's information is presentlyunknown.

In 2008, Plaintifi an award-winning news reporter re-located to East Grand Forks,

Soon thereafter, Plaintifflearned he had interviewed law enforcement's suspects in the

A. TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH

18. Timothy Holmseth, 46, (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "Holmseth") is a news reporter,

22.In2008, Plaintiff began developing a freelance writing business with aspirations

B. PLAINTIFF CONDUCTS JOURNALISM INTERVIEWS WITH KEY

23.InApril of 2009, Plaintiffwas contacted by Rev. Richard Grund, a case witness in

24. Plaintiff s communications with Rev. Grund led to recorded journalistic

27.lnFebruary of 2010 the Minneapolis FBI contacted Plaintiffand requested he

C. PLAINTIFF IS TARGETED FOR DEFAMATION, HARASSMENT,

D. EAST GRAND FORKS POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTS AS AGENT FOR

36.Lt.Hajicek telephoned and intimidated Plaintiffon behalf of Xentel Inc, a Florida

E. EGFPD ASSISTS KIDNAPPING SUSPECTS IN FLORIDA KIDNAPPING

IS BROUGHT UP AT ALL. ART AND TIMOTTIY HAVE A BLOG FEUD

+ SUMMARY: During June and July of 2009 the EGFPD is suddenly

being targeted - but rather - continued and intensified its aggression

F. PLAINTIFF FIRED FROM JOB WORKING FOR CITY OF EAST GRAND

G. PLAINTIFF INTERVIEWED BY THE MINNEAPOLIS FBI

4g.lnFebruary of 2010 Plaintiffwas interviewed by Special Agent A.J. Eilerman of

H. PLAINTIFF RELEASES BOOK ABOUT HALEIGH CUMMINGS

I. PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY CAR _ NO CHARGES FILED AGAINST

51. On 08/22171 Plaintiffwas struck by an automobile driven by his son's mother,

J. DEFENDANTS ASSIST AND COORDINATE WITH ATTORNEY KIM

THE FLORIDA DTVORCE COURT SCHEME

52. On09/08/1L, Kim Picazio, a CIVIL DIVORCE ATTORNEY [emphasis added],

54. Plaintiffreported to Lt. Hajicek thatWilliam Staubs (Attorney Kim Picazio's

55. On 09119111, a Florida judge denied PlaintifPs request to appear in court by

04l02l72,EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund responded to a formal

K. DEFENDANT(S) VIOLATE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY

PLAINTIFF COERCED INTO PLEA DEAL UNDER EXTREME DURESS _ PART

60. On \Olzgllz,after nearly ayear,Plaintiff anived at the Polk County Justice

LaCoursiere told Plaintiffthat if he refused to accept an Alford plea deal, Galstad

THE GROUNDWORK FOR PART 2 OF THE PLAN IS LAID DOWN

65. Plaintiffsubsequently filed a formal complaint to the Office of Lawyers

L. DEFENDANT GALSTAD HAD NO WITNESSA/ICTIM TO TESTIFY AT

M. DEFENDANT VIOLATES PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS -

76. Honorable Yon refused to allow Galstad to hold an Evidentiary Hearing on

N. bEFENDANTS CONTINUE TO ASSIST KIM AND MICHAEL PICAZIO -

TT.InPolice Report number MN0600200, Lt. Rodney Hajicek continues to accept

Tg.lnzlll,Plaintifflearned from Edward Boyle, the brother of Maria Burgun, a

Kim and Michael Picazio being of honible repute

O. RETALIATION - DEFENDANTS STAGE BOGUS BCA TASK FORCE RAID

83. On l2ll4ll2 Attomey LaCoursiere telephoned Plaintiffand wanted to talk about

seconds after Plaintiffgot off the telephone with LaCoursiere

Tll2Tll3,Plaintiff submitted a request for records to the

91. On 01,l}3ll4 Plaintifffiled a complaint to Polk County SheriffBarb Erdman

P. EGFPD TURNS OVER HIDDEN POLICE REPORTS _ POLICE REPORTS

95. Plaintiffcompared the information contained in the 'White Envelope Reports'

Q. RONALD GALSTAD EXTORTS PLAINTIFF

R. EGFPD DESTROYS PLAINTIFF'S COMPUTER HARD-DRIVE

S. PLAINTIFF'S LIFE THREATENED AGAIN

T. MICHAEL HEDLUND COVERS UP POLICE MISCONDUCT _ FALSE