TIM HOLMSETH V THE INTERNET: REMOVE WHAT???

In his latest rant, Tim Holmseth claims to have filed a notice of removal. The problem is that he filed in the wrong judical district. Instead, he posted his conspiracy theories once again along with an old recording of what is apparently William Staubs and someone else trying to call someone only to have that person hang up on him and another woman heard in the recording.

Holmseth does not explain what the context of this call is and how this ties into his notice of removal. Holmseth also does not include a case number that would be supplied by the court making any search for the court record of this filing if he even made one.

Holmseth also does not explain exacly what it is he wants removed. The reference of Tom Olsen who lives hundreds of miles from Central Florida may have to do with a temporary injunction granted to Olsen that prohibits Holmseth from mentioning him on any of his social media accounts.

Holseth has filed his action with the wrong court. Since the action Tim is disputing originated in Northwest Florida, he would need to file any notice of removal in that district, not in Orlando  through Ocala, Florida where the Federal court for this district is located. Also, if my name turns up on anything he DID file, I could force him to appear in The federal district court in Ocala, Florida personally to answer for whatever he has stated about me. If he were not to appear (as was the case with Olsen’s filings, his notice would be dismissed outright.

The next hearing to deal with a permant court order is slated for September 6th in Santa Rosa County Florida. Holmseth would have to appear in person to defend his actions or the filing by Olsen would be granted by default. 

It is not likely he filed anything since I have made FOIA requests for copies of these notices and have been told by the individual courts that there have been no filings.

This time Holmseth has filed in what he claims is the 9th district which is Orlando and where I reside. It is a 2 hour drive to the federal courthouse from my house so it is a simple matter to personally visit the court and seek out these records much faster.

In addition, there is this. In civil cases that involve a federal statute or law that are originally brought in state court, a party may seek to remove or shift the case to a federal court in that jurisdiction to be heard. Removal isn’t even remotely applicable in this case and is not available.

He’s forgetting that this isn’t a case where he’s suing for anything. He’s a Respondent in a DV injunction case. Removal applies only where causes of action raise federal questions. He can’t bring causes of action, or counter sue as a Respondent in a civil DV injunction case, which is based on Florida state statute. So no, removal isn’t available to him. That’s a very simple explanation of a very complex area of the law.  Suffice it to say, he’s using concepts he doesn’t understand and are being incorrectly applied. You can’t remove to federal court in a civil DV injunction case.

I should know by sometime next week if Holmseth has filed anything or if he is lying yet again.

Stay tuned

MURT

8 comments

  • who givesa shit

    my, my, you certainly are obsessed with olsen and this other douchebag.

    • MURTWITNESSONE

      My,My,you certainly obsessed with what I write in this blog.

      MURT

      • Whatever

        Can’t turn around your obsession on me dude.

        You are clearly obsessed with these people and pretending to be a tough guy online.

        Maybe it’s time to go outside, take a walk, read a book, anything besides this jackassery

        • MURTWITNESSONE

          Whatever, you are the one reading here. I am writing about a massive amount of false information being spread around on the internet. I gather by your comments that you would not mind someone falsely accusing you of being a pedophile and being involved with a group that murders, kidnaps, rapes and traffics children.

          MURT

        • MURTWITNESSONE

          A ps, here. If you do not like the blog, stay away. Your continued visiting of this tiny blog is quite odd. Also, writing the articles I write takes very little time. An hour each at most. I am also able to write my blog anywhere I may be. I may be home or I may be quite far away. Nobody knows where I am at most of the time. I do have things I do off of the internet.

          MURT

        • Lynda

          Yet here you are again. tsk tsk. You are here more than Murt

  • Olson is a vexatious litigant - no doubt about it

    “Holmseth would have to appear in person to defend his actions or the filing by Olsen would be granted by default. ”

    Absolute BULLSHIT. Olson would still have to prove his case, still have to prove personal jurisdiction, and prove that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Olson is a 2 time loser when it comes to these kinds of restraining orders, do not forget. Do you think the judge (the same one who denied Olson’s previous requests) will have forgotten, too?

    Only going by what you have written here, are you confusing a “Notice of Removal” for a pleading filed in a state court case that would remove it to federal court?

    • MURTWITNESSONE

      I did state earlier that my use of “notice of removal” was an error on my part. Olsen was granted a temporary injunction. That is why Holmseth is suddenly redacting his name on the blog.

      MURT