TIMOTHY C HOLMSETH V THE INTERNET” PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE TRUTH??
by Timothy Charles Holmseth on August 26, 2017 at 12:08 P.M.
“Minnesota Federal Judge Donovan Frank has allowed a rights violation complaint against the City of East Grand Forks to proceed.”
Well, that is not exactly what happened. Tim Holmseth left quite a bit out of his article which is his normal practice. What he forgets is that I have a PACER account with the federal court system and am able to download ANY court record he files with the federal court system.
Let’s examine what came out of the court this last Thursday point by point:
Right at the beginning there is an indication of a problem with this statement “However this matter has not been served on any of the city or county defendants or any other party.” This matter was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE on July 23, 2015.”
What needs to be noted is that the original complaint by Holmseth was dismissed exactly two years ago. Rather than take the advice that was in the original dismissal, Holmseth filed again.
I will get into detail of the 2015 dismissal in my subsequent article.
This next section almost appears to offer a glimmer of hope for Holmseth as “the court will refer it to the District’s Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project for the limited purpose of giving him advice as to how to proceed, if at all, given the court’s decision here.”
It is this small statement at the end of the above paragraph that is most important “ if at all, given the court’s decision here.”
To fully understand one has to read the final paragraph in the above section:
“Based upon the status of the case and the court aving reviewed the submission of the Plaintiff being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the court enters the following:
In conclusion, it would seem to me that all that happened here is that the judge forwarded the case to the bar association to see if there was a pro bono lawyer would advse Holmseth how to proceed if there was any point of doing so in the first place.
It is also clear that the court did not do as Holmseth claims it did in his article.