CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 8

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF POLK NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State of Minnesota, ) File No. 60-CR-11-2640

)
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
Timothy Charles Holmseth, ) TRANSCRIPT OF
) PROCEEDINGS
Defendant. )

10 The above entitled matter came on for hearing

11 before the Honorable Tamara L. Yon, one of the judges of

12 the within court, in the courtroom in the courthouse at

13 Crookston, Minnesota, on April 15, 2013.

14 Mr. Ronald Gaistad, City Attorney in and for

15 said City of East Grand Forks, appeared on behalf of the

16 State of Minnesota.

17 Mr. Bruce N. Ringstrom, Sr., Special

18 Assistant Public Defender for the Ninth Judicial

19 District, appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was

20 also present in court.

21 Thereupon the following proceedings were

22 had:

23 THE COURT: State of Minnesota versus

24 Timothy Charles Holmseth. File No. CR-11-2640.

25 Mr. Holmseth is present with his attorney, Bruce

EXHIBIT
 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 8
2

Ringstrom. And we have Ron Gaistad present on behalf of

2 the State.

3 My understanding is that the parties have

4 reached a resolution in this matter and so,

Mr. Ringstrom, why don't I turn to you first on behalf

6 of your client.

7 MR. RINGSTROM: Thank you, Your Honor. Yes,

8 pending is a motion to find that Mr. Holmseth is in

9 violation of the terms of the stay of adjudication that

10 you announced on the 29th of October. At this time I

11 understand and I believe that it's Mr. Galstad's

12 intention to withdraw that motion. Second, under a stay

13 of adjudication, under local practice, it is customary

14 to have a return after several months to see if the

15 person who has, is the beneficiary, is in compliance.

16 At this point, Mr. Gaistad, I believe, is

17 going to indicate that as far as the conduct that he was

18 directed not to engage in, that is removed from the

19 Internet, take down postings, he is in compliance with

20 all of that. So what remains is whether or not over the

21 next 12 months -- and we're agreeing that the stay of

22 adjudication for one year would start today. The

23 conduct that Mr. Holmseth or the condition of the stay

24 is essentially do not engage in any further behavior.

25 No longer looking at him taking postings down.

 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 8
3

And then I had this unofficial transcript of

2 your discussion on the 29th and basically I've detailed

3 the language of your prohibitions on page 19. You

4 indicated he is to make no direct or indirect reference

5 about Ms. Picazio, Kim Picazio, on the Internet or by

6 use of electronic communication. And then on page 20

7 you directed that he comply with the Florida order and,

8 again, were looking at this point of prohibition of

9 further behavior, but not a direction to do certain

10 things. And there your direction was there be no other

11 contact, face-to-face, e-mail, electronic communication,

12 phone calls, texting, sending messages to her through

13 other people. There's just to be no contact. Those are

14 the specific conditions of the stay.

15 And then last, but not least, Your Honor,

16 there was a search warrant that was executed on

17 Mr. Holmseth's residence in December in gathering

18 evidence to show that he was in violation of the terms

19 of the stay. At this point -- although those items will

20 be returned to Mr. Holmseth not later than Friday, a

21 week from now, I believe that would be the 26th of

22 April -- it is understood that the forensic officer and

23 apparently instead of the BCA, the East Grand Forks

24 Police Department, had turned these items over to a

25 forensics officer, forensic-trained officer with the

 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 4 of 8
4

Polk County Sheriff's Department, that he would make a

2 mirror of the hard drive, if they so choose.

3 At this point I believe it's been

4 demonstrated that Mr. Holmseth has removed everything,

5 but if they wish to preserve a mirror, we are in

6 agreement they can do so if that would benefit them in

7 the future months to show that he has engaged in

8 behavior that constitutes a violation.

9 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Galstad, is that

10 your understanding of the agreement?

11 MR. GALSTAD: It's my understanding that,

12 yes, Mr. Holmseth would like to continue to take

13 advantage of the deferred acceptance or the stay of

14 adjudication. At this time, from my observations and

15 the officers of the city of East Grand Forks, he is

16 compliant. He's removed the YouTube videos. He's

17 removed the items that were on his website. So we would

18 be making a motion to withdraw the motion to vacate the

19 stay of adjudication.

20 I'm not sure, I don't have my copy of the

21 transcript. It would be my understanding that he would

22 be required to follow the previous order of the Court.

23 If that's what Mr. Ringstrom actually recited, that's

24 fine. I do remember that at the time I presented to you

25 the actual order and had you read the order into the
 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 5 of 8
5

1 record. So that would be it. And then we'll agree to

2 get the computer and the items that were removed in that

search warrant to him no later than that date.

4 THE COURT: And presumably would that be

5 close of business then? And I looked on here, it is

6 Friday, April 26th, by 4:30. Would Mr. Holmseth be able

7 to retrieve them or would they be brought back to his

8 place?

9 MR. RINGSTROM: The understanding was he

10 could pick them up at the East Grand Forks Police

11 Department. They're at the Polk County Sheriff's

12 Department with the forensic examiner there. I

13 instructed Mr. Holmseth to check with the East Grand

14 Forks Police Department this Wednesday. They may have

15 them back by then. But if not, I would ask that you

16 pick them up a little earlier than the close of business

17 on Friday so that you don't get there about the time

18 that secretarial staff are getting ready to go home on a

19 Friday. One o'clock, 2 o'clock.

20 MR. GALSTAD: And I'll try to have them

21 there earlier, Your Honor. I'm not sure in the process

22 where they are.

23 THE COURT: Mr. Holmseth, you've heard what

24 your attorney has said, Mr. Gaistad has said, is this

25 what you wish to do is proceed under this agreement?

 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 6 of 8
6

1 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I will go ahead and

3 follow the agreement then. And so we'll note that the

4 State is withdrawing its motion to revoke the stay of

5 adjudication and the stay of adjudication will remain in

6 effect for one year. And I understand then under the

7 terms of the agreement that would start today. So were

8 starting over with the one-year period of time starting

9 today, which is April 15, 2013. All of the conditions

10 of the stay of adjudication from before would remain in

11 effect. And I will be honest, I don't have the

12 transcript in the file. I think because it was

13 unofficial, it wasn't in the file, but if there's any

14 confusion at all, let me know. It sounds like your

15 attorney has been very good, very thorough to go through

16 this. All of those same conditions would remain in

17 effect and then the items taken from Mr. Hoimseth by

18 that search warrant would be returned by one p.m., let's

19 say Friday, April 26th, if not sooner. That would be

20 the deadline. One p.m., April 26th, and it sounds like

21 the deal is Mr. Holmseth could go to the police station

22 and retrieve the items.

23 All right. And I would also note, too, that

24 forensics would be allowed to make a mirror copy of the

25 hard drive and that's permissible. All right. I am

 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 7 of 8
7

1 following my notes that I took.

2 Counsel, my intent is to follow the

3 agreement. Is there any additional items that I might

4 have missed?

5 MR. RINGSTROM: I would like to verify that

6 we are in agreement that at this point the requirements

7 of the Florida order and your directive of the 29th of

8 October were essentially two parts. One, that he was to

9 do certain things. Those are done. The other part of

10 the Florida order that will be the object of any

11 scrutiny for the next year in this Court, do not engage

12 in any prohibited behavior. Just want to establish

13 that's what we're talking about.

14 THE COURT: That's my understanding too.

15 Take down any links or posts or anything on the website

16 and then don't add any more in the future. And that's

17 my understanding as well.

18 MR. GALSTAD: That's correct.

19 MR. RINGSTROM: Thank you, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Thank you. Good luck,

21 Mr. Holmseth.

22

23

24

25
 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 35-7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 8 of 8

1 I hereby certify that the foregoing constitutes

a full, true and correct transcript taken from my
2 original stenographic notes on the date and at the place
indicated herein.
3

4
Lisa Peterson, RPR
5 District Court Reporter
Crookston, Minnesota
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25