CHRISTINE FISCHER, ASHLEY KLINGBEIL AND VICTORIA GUILLEMARD

VS.
SENATOR TORREY WESTROM, ET AL.

Account of the hearing/trial before the Honorable Diane Bratvold, by Brian Wojtalewicz, attorney for
Petitioner Victoria Guillemard.

The hearing or trial was held on Wednesday and Thursday, August 24 and 25, 2022 at the
Minnesota Judicial Center. Reid Lebeau was lead counsel for Senator Westrom. Nathan Hartshorn was
lead counsel for the Minnesota Secretary of State and Attorney General office. Brian Wojtalewicz was
the attorney for Petitioner Victoria Guillemard, resident of Murdock, Minn. in Swift County. Original
Petitioners Christine Fischer and Ashley Klingbeil appeared pro-se, without an attorney. Ms. Fischer is a
resident of Glenwood, Minnesota and Ms. Klingbeil of Alexandria, Minn. All three Petitioners are
residents of the new Senate District 12, and Ashley Klingbeil is a candidate for the We The People party
running against Republican Senator Torrey Westrom and DFL candidate Kari Dorry.

Most of the named Respondents, including the auditors of the various counties in District 12, did
not attend or participate in the trial. Counsel for the Attorney General and Secretary of State, Mr.
Hartshorn, questioned no witnesses, made a brief final argument, but remained neutral concerning the
salient residence issue of the case.

PETITIONERS’ CASE

Videos and Photographs

A. Over 3 weeks this July, petitioner Ashley Klingbeil shot multiple videos, and captured still
photos, of Torrey and Anna Westroms’ home on the NE corner of Elbow Lake, showing a well-
maintained, large yard, with multiple cars, lawn mowers, a trailer and the black and maroon side
by side ATV used by Senator Westrom in parades. These were taken on three separate dates in
July, in the day and evening. This home of years for the Westroms is no longer in the new
Senate District 12, and Senator Westrom is nearly a life long resident of Elbow Lake.

In contrast were videos taken on three different dates in July by Petitioner Christine Fischer at
Senator Westrom’s newly claimed address along Lake Mary, just SW of Alexandria in the new
District 12. These videos and captured stills show weeds as high as 18” in the front yard and
lower deck back yard area facing the lake, weeds tucked right into the lower door crack of the
patio facing the lake, and tall weeds coming up through the patio and circular stairway stone.
No path through the weeds goes down to the lake, which has no dock. The front yard near the
tall-wood fence and entry gate had piles of spruce branch debris. No people or vehicles were
present in the three different days of videoing at the claimed Lake Mary new residence. Looking
through the two windows without pulled shades, Ms. Fischer could not see any wall hangings or
furniture in the limited view of the interior. Visible in the empty garage were a line of several
kitchen appliances along one wall, and a single Westrom campaign sign.
 Anna Westrom admitted to having 3 teenagers who are capable of mowing and pulling weeds,
and that she herself pulls a lot of weeds.

B. Testimony of Senator Westrom:

Senator Westrom, over the objection of his attorney, Mr. LeBeau, was called adversely as the
first witness in the Petitioners’ case. He admitted that three different websites where he had
control of information input all still carry his Elbow Lake address: the official Minnesota Senate
website; and two website pages of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, containing legally
required information of candidates. He was very familiar with the MCFB legal information filing
requirements, having been a candidate for over 25 years. Later in the trial he said he was
unaware that the Senate Republican Caucus website also still carried Elbow Lake as his home
address.

Senator Westrom was confronted about forwarding mail from the Elbow Lake home to the
newly claimed Lake Mary address. He said he immediately completed a mail forwarding at the
post office within a few days of purchasing the Lake Mary property on May 6, just two days
before the May 8 residency deadline for the Nov. 8 election this year. When asked about
samples of a dozen pieces of mail received at the new Lake Mary address in one of his exhibits,
he admitted that none of them had the yellow tag mail forwarding of the post office from his
alleged prior Elbow Lake home. His wife Anna Westrom was also called adversely by the
Petitioners and denied knowing anything about mail forwarding. She also denied receiving any
magazines, bills, retirement account statements, retirement account or credit card statements,
or any other mail items she could identify, at their Elbow Lake home over the last several years
they lived there!

Anna Westrom offered no testimony about the number of nights she and/or the Senator spent
overnight at the newly claimed Lake Mary address from May 8 to mid-August. Senator Westrom
claimed he spent “many nights” but never testified to even an approximate number, or
percentage.

Senator Westrom claimed they held many events with family and friends at the newly claimed
Lake Mary address over the summer, but produced only one photograph of his children and a
cousin playing in the front yard, now mowed.

Several of the videos taken by Ms. Klingbeil at the Elbow Lake home in the evening and night
show the lights on the house, and the Westroms’ white SUVs present.

When a Grant County Deputy went to serve Senator Westrom at the Elbow Lake home with the
initial Petition of this case, he was met outside the garage by Anna Westrom, who claimed that
her husband Torrey lived at the Lake Mary address. Yet Anna was obviously present at the
Elbow Lake home.
 Mrs. Westrom also claimed that the kitchen appliances lined up along the wall inside the Lake
Mary garage were for other rental properties that the Westroms’ real estate company owned.
Senator Westrom later admitted that one of the appliances, a stainless steel kitchen stove, was
later moved into the kitchen, after Ms. Fischer’s video in late July.

About six photos of the interior of Lake Mary offered by the Westroms showed the Senator and
several kids inside the upper level kitchen and living room. These photos showed the stainless
steel kitchen stove, and Mr. Westrom was wearing the same clothing in the photos. A coffee
pot and appliances were sitting on the kitchen counter in these photos, but were not present on
that counter when Ms. Fischer videoed it through the kitchen door in July. Petitioners argued
that these interior photos by the Westroms were staged in one day. The living room photo
showed a TV sitting on a leather ottoman, and two bedroom photos with bare walls.

Senator Westrom admitted that David Stamsness, a co-owner of the recently bought Lake Mary
house, is actually a brother-in-law of his, and a mortgage banker from Rochester. Further,
Stamsness has no right of usage or possession on the Lake Mary house, even though he’s a co-
owner. The purchase agreement was in May and the closing was only 3 days after the purchase
agreement. The price was paid in cash, no mortgage. When asked how much cash he or his wife
Anna actually put into the house, on the $344,000 sale just about 75 days earlier, Senator
Westrom said he could not remember. He either couldn’t or would not state the number. He
said a number of private lenders were involved, but disclosed none.

Senator Westrom’s Evidence

Mr. Westrom had his father and seven other campaign volunteers testify that they had picked
him up, starting in May and throughout this summer, at the Lake Mary address to attend
campaign events. They then dropped him off usually at the Lake Mary address later that day or
evening. One driver said he later dropped him at the Westroms Lake Ida cabin several times.

His father Dennis Westrom also testified that he had trail cameras pointed toward an area
including the narrow gravel drive up to the Lake Mary house gate. He said these were not
operating for the last 2 years and had been put there by him in attempting to stop intruders at
Dennis Westrom’s scenic view RV park, which Torrey and Anna Westrom’s “new” house sits
within.

Westrom’s attorney Mr. LeBeau emphasized that the total video time by Fischer and Klingbeil
amounted to only 14 minutes, and the only person ever depicted outside the Elbow Lake house
was a teenage boy of the Westroms.

Senator Westrom emotionally broke into tears when testifying that his teenage boy was upset
and fearful when he saw Ms. Klingbeil’s car drive by on County Road 20 by their
Elbow Lake house, holding a cell phone up like she was videoing. He called this stalking of a
minor by Ms. Klingbeil. He also accused Ms. Fischer of trespassing at the Lake Mary property,
 but could not produce a single photo where “No Trespassing” signs were displayed at that
property.

Mr. LeBeau argued that the Westroms get no magazines because Senator Westrom cannot read,
being blind for years.

Senator Westrom accused Klingbeil and Fischer of having a political agenda.

Senator Westrom testified that they had changed their family church from one in Elbow Lake to
one in Alexandria, changed his Minnesota ID, and cancelled his tax homestead status on the
Elbow Lake home, all in May.

Senator Westrom claimed good physical familiarity with the Lake Mary premises and local street
geography despite his being blind.

Senator Westrom and his wife Anna claimed that the high weeds at the Lake Mary house were a
product of them being very busy with campaigning and their real estate business all summer,
lawn mowers breaking down, and having to manage 10 other real estate properties.

Senator Westrom said that the piles of spruce branches were remaining from a friend who had
disposed of 4 different spruce trees sometime over the summer after the duracho wind of
Memorial Day.

Senator Westrom said that he and immediate family members moved furniture to the Lake
Mary house immediately after the May 6 closing, with their small aluminum trailer. No moving
company or people other than immediate family helped him move. His exhibits included a
picture of him standing by the small aluminum snowmobile trailer at the Lake Mary front yard.

Final Argument by Attorney LeBeau:

Attorney LeBeau for Senator Westrom emphasized that Petitioners have a very heavy legal
burden of proof, clear and convincing evidence, to move a candidate from the ballot, and that
Petitioners have utterly failed.

He emphasized the favorable facts above for Senator Westrom, and argued that he has
produced more evidence showing residency than politicians Solem and Piepho, who recently
survived accusations of no residency in Minnesota cases.

He further argued that the court should not encourage trespassers and stalkers by ruling that
Senator Westrom had not proven his residency.

Petitioners’ Final Arguments

Petitioners Fischer and Klingbiel said that they were alerted to the residency issue by a political
blog, and were amazed at what they discovered when they traveled to the two residences. This
led them to investigate and do the videos. They emphasized their intentions were positive and
honest, and their number one purpose was enforcing Article IV, Section 6 of the Minnesota
Constitution that requires a 6 month prior residency before an election.

Mr. Wojtalewicz on behalf of Petitioner Guillemard objected to the clear and convincing burden
of proof, as it was not mandated by any State statute, which is the ordinary legal requirement
for a higher burden of proof. He further pointed out language in the State election statute, MS
204B.44(b) that appears to require the accused candidate to present “sufficient evidence of the
candidate’s eligibility.” Thus, the true burden of proof should be on the candidate, not citizen
petitioners trying to enforce a clause of our constitutional.

Mr. Wojtalewicz cited the Monaghan v. Simon case where the Supreme Court removed former
Republican Representative Bob Barrett as a candidate, where the trial judge emphasized the
lack of Mr. Barrett’s credibility. Mr. Wojtalewicz argued that similarly, there were multiple
indications of lack of credibility of the Westroms in the testimony and document exhibits.

He emphasized that Ms. Klingbeil and Ms. Fischer adamantly denied any stalking of a minor or
trespassing, and that there are state statutes prohibiting such and those could be prosecuted by
authorities if appropriate.

He also reviewed the Petitioner’s favorable facts pointing toward non-residency from May 8 to
August 24, the date of the hearing, and that the facts shown by the Westroms, including
photographs of the interior, had signs of staging, that the residency claim was a sham.

Judge Diane Bratvold state that her decision and findings would be issued by August 30.