Cataclysmic Cover-Up in Grazzini-Rucki Case: Retaliation Against Lawyer Michelle MacDonald

Source: Red Herring Alert – Cataclysmic Cover-Up


Read in its entirety 

Attorney Michelle MacDonald

 

EXCERPT: On the day that S.G.’s (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) trial was set to begin, MacDonald filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court on S.G.’s behalf against the district judge personally, not in his official capacity. MacDonald then moved for the judge’s recusal from the case based on the pending federal lawsuit against him. The judge denied the motion, at which point MacDonald stated, “[a]nd you are telling me that you can be impartial in this trial, which you haven’t done since day one.” The referee found that this statement violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a)6 and 8.4(d), because it was made with reckless disregard for the truth.   

“Even a thousand loud lies become powerless in front of one calm truth.” 

 

Apparently, this does not apply to county prosecutors:

Portions from Michelle MacDonald’s Brief:

The disciplinary proceedings against me were triggered by one letter by Judge David Knutson filed with the Lawyers Board in January 2014 (A.49).  His letter came after I filed a Federal Lawsuit against him on behalf of my  client, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on September 11, 2013; after I was wrongfully arrested in his courtroom by deputies, on September 12, 2013 for taking a picture of the deputy; and after I  complained in four letters and attachments about Judge Knutson to the Board of Judicial Standards (A 35,39,42,46).

The Director claims in her Brief that my silence upon my arrest is actionable by the court (Director’s Brief at 17-20).  At the same time, the Director claims in her Brief that  I had no First Amendment right to make statements criticizing a Judge (See Director’s Brief at 20-26).

No matter the findings of the Referee, lawyers can criticize a judge and his decisions, whether in letters or court filings, without retribution by the Director or jeopardizing their license, because such statements are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of absolute privilege.

Upon close scrutiny of the testimony, Exhibits and rules, the Referee’s proposed findings of fact, even if true, and if applied correctly to the law, cannot support that my conduct violated the MRPC, warranting discipline (See generally Transcripts of Proceedings Volumes I and II; Director’s Exhibits 1-64, and Ms. MacDonald’s Exhibits 1-23).

Contrary to the Directors statement, the Referee found mitigating factors, and is required, to recognize them.  The Referee found that “Respondent offered testimony regarding her pro bono work, her work as a Referee in Hennepin County and her minimal prior disciplinary history as a mitigation of her misconduct (R. Test; R. Ex 120; A. 31).

Here, mitigating factors far outweigh the nature of the alleged misconduct.  For 30 years, I have been an attorney in good standing, serving as a conciliation/small claims court Judge, Hennepin County for 22 of those years (1999 to 2014); and Adjunct Referee/Arbitrator in family and civil court (1992-2011).  She received a Years of Service Recognition Award, Conciliation Court, Hennepin County.  Ms. MacDonald received the Northstar Lawyers, Pro Bono award 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

I have represented thousands of clients, before hundreds of Judges, including lead counsel on Sixty (60) appellate decisions, which include amicus briefs, appearances before the Appellate and Minnesota Supreme Court, and Petitions to the United States Supreme Court.

I am Founder, Volunteer President and Board Member of Family Innocence, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully (2011- present).

I am a founding member of Cooperative Private Divorce Project (Divorce without courts), with regular meetings since 2013 for family court reform to develop proposed legislation, Cooperative Private Divorce Bill HF 1348, which creates an administrative pathway to divorce that skips the court adversarial system.

I am founding member of Child Custody/Parenting Time Dialogue Group, with regular meetings since inception, 2013.

The Referee’s findings cannot serve as the basis for discipline or for depriving me of my occupational license for any period of time.  The evidence was protected by virtue of being contained in court pleadings and by the First Amendment and doctrine of absolute immunity.  Therefore, the Referee’s findings merit reversal.

So, if the Supreme Court states that MacDonald did not adequately represent her client, why aren’t Sandra’s family court orders Void Ab Initio? Just sayin. . .

I'm waiting to have a conversation with you Judy.....I'd love nothing more than to be able to put all of this behind us! You have to actually 'talk' to me to resolve this.

The majority of attorneys are willing to play the court game and don’t have the hutzpah to stand up for their clients or their profession.

This is another strong message from “the powers that be” that you better fall in line or you too will face suspension or disbarment. Clearly, attorneys are willing to practice fake law, in fake courtrooms, with fake judges, and fake media covering the fake outcomes.

Where are the attorneys willing to stand up for their colleagues and rank and file citizens to shut down this tyrannical court system? WAKE UP AND STAND UP FOR YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS BEING DESTROYED BY THE ABUSE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY, BECAUSE INEVITABLY YOUR TIME IS COMING!

Bundy Attorney Who Argued For Client’s Release Faces Disbarment Hearing-Law Violating Prosecutor In Bundy Randh Case Keeps Job

 TIM BROWN  

If this doesn’t show you how crooked the federal judicial system is, nothing will.

Ammon Bundy’s attorney in the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Refuge case, Marcus Mumford, had criminal charges filed against him after he was tased and tackled by federal marshalls for simply arguing for his client’s release in court.

Listen to his account of what happened.

Continue Reading:https://freedomoutpost.com/bundy-attorney-argued-clients-release-faces-disbarment-hearing-law-violating-prosecutor-bundy-ranch-case-keeps-job/

Advertisements

Evavold Blogger’s Rights Case Shows How Far Dakota County Will Go to Trample on First Amendment #19AV-CR-17-16709

Source: First Amendment Court Case #19AV-CR-17-16709/

Posted January 10, 2018 on Red Herring Alert Blog by Dede Evavold

Contrary to the false tweets put out by Michael Brodkorb, I did have my pre-trial hearing for my false harassment restraining order (HRO) violation. This was not a hearing related to additional criminal charges and in fact, I still have not received documentation regarding these “new charges”. Brodkorb always seems to have the inside scoop as to what’s going down before I’m ever notified.  Hmmmm……

 

Michael Brodkorb: “At the hearing on December 13, 2017, Elliott said that Evavold’s post published the private address of the Rucki family on a platform with a “dangerous” audience. Evavold did not respond to Elliott’s claims in court, but Judge Kanning said he would grant the motion filed by Elliott.”

Senior Judge Philip T. Kanning (Source: Minnesota Judicial Branch)

Judge Asphaug presided over yesterday’s hearing and indicated that the motion hearing to vacate the harassment restraining order will take place prior to any further hearings. This is the same judge that signed the ex-parte harassment restraining order against me for my crime of referencing the petitioner    on this blog and presided over our “Parental Deprivation” cases.
Click to view: Supreme Court Petition
BTW, I’ve NEVER had an HRO against me, but petitioner has had several filed against him as well as an endless stream of police reports, CPS reports, letters, and orders for protection.
Below are examples of petitioner’s patterns of behavior that he is empowered to continue due to the cover-up by law enforcement, attorneys and judges.

 

 

(Double click to zoom)

 

 

 

 

 

The above case was in front of  none other than Judge Karen Asphaug and prosecuted by Elliot Knetsch who is now prosecuting me.  A preliminary hearing was held on December 31, 2009 and as a result of the hearing, a trial was scheduled for February 8, 2010. On the eve of the trial, the defense filed a motion to dismiss for “lack of probable cause.” That motion was granted without a hearing by Judge Asphaug and the case was thrown out.

Image result for save the date

My free speech hearing is scheduled for March 14th at the Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley.

 

 Dakota County Western Service Center
Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley, MN.14955 Galaxie Ave. West
Apple Valley, MN 55124

 

 

Unedited Footage from ABC 20/20 – Reveals How Far ABC Will Go to Suppress Abuse in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Behind the scenes footage from the 2016 taping of ABC’s “Footprints in the Snow” suggests that ABC 20/20 suppressed evidence of abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki case, and slanted the story, in order to portray mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and friend, Dede Evavold, as “vigilante parents” and “family court critics” who participated in a child-kidnapping network operating in a “hidden world”. In pushing this false story, ABC 20/20 covered up domestic abuse, and encouraged viewers to disregard cries for help from children who courageously spoke up to disclose the physical and mental abuse they endured at the hands of a violent father.

 

The video “ABC’s 20/20 Producer Sean Dooley interviews Dede Evavold for Footprints in the Snow April 2016 Broadcast” shows raw footage of producer Sean Dooley interviewing Dede Evavold. Dede is a friend of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki who became involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case by helping Sandra’s teen daughters S.R. and G.R. find a place to stay after they ran away when the family court failed to protect them from their abusive father, David Rucki. The behind the scenes footage offers Dede’s side of the story, in her own words. Comparing this raw footage to the finished product, it is clear “Footprints” is highly editorialized by ABC 20/20 and its portrayal of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and “supporters” does not accurately reflect their story or experiences.

Dede Evavold (Source: Linked In)

During the interview, ABC producer Sean Dooley admits that he is aware of allegations that runaway sisters, S.R. and G.R., were being abused by their father and if returned to his care they could potentially be abused again. This is a side of the Grazzini-Rucki case never presented in “Footprints”. When asking Dede about the role of the Dahlens (who sheltered the girls on a therapeutic horse ranch), Dooley says, (24:11),”You knew they were safe.. what I guess I’m ..the point I’m trying to get at is you know is this a situation where you felt like what was most important was to ensure that these two teenage girls were in a safe environment and so what you knew about the Dahlens, you felt comfortable saying you knew that they were safe. So that they weren’t going to be with their father, they weren’t going to be put back into a situation where they were potentially at risk of being abused…”

The importance of this remark is that it shows that Dooley clearly understood Dede’s reasons for getting involved after S.R. and G.R. ran away were to protect the children from abuse – yet when “Footprints” aired, ABC 20/20 pushed a completely false narrative and mischaracterized Sandra and “supporters” as radical “activists”.

Sean Dooley wrote a response to journalist Michael Volpe stating ABC stands by their report, and did not suppress information about abuse. Read the response here: ABC Response – Footprints

Sean Dooley (Source: Linked In)

During the interview, Dede repeatedly asks Dooley to “dig deeper” and investigate how the failures of the court to keep the Rucki children safe from abuse caused teen sisters S.R. and G.R. to run away in April 2013.

Dede says, “There shouldn’t have to be a time where children have to runaway because they are fearful. If the system was in place, and it was set up on how it’s supposed to function, they (S.R. and G.R.) would have never had to run. And you hear a lot that the family courts are broken.. they are not broken, they are well designed, there’s a well-designed operation..the court system really functions on conflict for profit.”

 

Dede remains calm throughout the interview, stating everything she has done was to protect S.R. and G.R. from being further harmed. While the sisters remained in hiding, Dede says, she worked to find a solution to keep the girls safe, and return them home. Dede said several times during the interview that she was not fearful. – It is obvious that Dede placed concern for S.R. and G.R. above her own situation, even when she was facing jail for efforts to protect them. Dede said she was hopeful that when “Footprints” aired that the allegations of abuse would be revealed and that someone, finally, would help the Rucki children.

 

Just the opposite happened – Dooley and ABC 20/20 not only suppressed information about abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki case but sympathized with Rucki, who is portrayed in “Footprints” as a victim of an “epic divorce”. Rucki’s lengthy criminal record, and propensity towards violence is also suppressed.

Elizabeth Vargas, former journalist and anchor, ABC 20/20

Although Dooley was informed of, and provided with evidence, of abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki case, ” the Rucki children were labeled as “brainwashed” and victims of “parental alienation”. ABC 20/20 encouraged viewers not to listen to, or believe, the children’s allegations of abuse or cries for help.

Both S.R. and G.R. have been very vocal in stating they are not “brainwashed” and were not coached by their mother, and that the abuse did, in fact, happen.

As noted in social service records from November 2015, recorded after the sisters were discovered living on the Dahlen’s ranch, S.R. says,”They were told by so many people that they were brainwashed and needed to be de-programmed. She never felt they were brainwashed.”

 

As for G.R., the social worker says, “Her dad would stalk the house when they were with mom. He showed anger like ‘I’m gonna kill you’. She got no hugs growing up. One time after a hockey game her dad rubbed her inner thigh. Dad shoved her mom often…She still feels fear of her dad, she does not know what he is like today… She does not feel her mother played a role in her thoughts or feelings about her dad.https://www.scribd.com/doc/316692570/SamiRucki

It should be noted that this Dakota County social worker believed that S.R. and G.R. were victims of abuse, and needed to be protected from Rucki. The social worker advocated in court for the girls during the November 2015 hearing, advising they be placed in foster care and that Rucki only be allowed supervised visits. (Nov 2015) Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns/

S.R. and G.R. were also appointed a lawyer, who fought to keep the girls in foster care for safety reasons. ABC 20/20 failed to mention any of this in “Footprints”.

Juvenile Court judge, Michael Mayer, disagreed and placed S.R. and G.R. back into the custody of Rucki. S.R. and G.R. were escorted from the courtroom by a guard who transported them to California to participate in a reunification therapy program. 20/20 portrays the program as successful, citing the girls didn’t run away. However, social service records note that the girls promised the social worker they would not run if sent to California. – It wasn’t the program that prevented S.R. and G.R. from attempting to run away, it was a promise made to a social worker, the only person in the system that believed them and tried to help. EPC Hearing Transcript Nov 30, 2015

 

At the time S.R. and G.R. were placed back into his custody, Rucki was on probation for a road rage incident where he followed a motorist, and ambushed him in a parking lot, beating the victim until he was bloodied and bruised. ABC 20/20 fails to mention this in “Footprints”; even as this behavior shows Rucki’s propensity towards violence.druckipolicereports

 

Despite overwhelming evidence of his abuse, reporter Elizabeth Vargas remains a strong supporter of David Rucki. During “Footprints”, Vargas says it is quote “total vindication” that Dakota County family court judge, David L. Knutson, denied any abuse had occurred then awarded sole custody to Rucki. At the time of the 2012 custody order, Rucki was on probation for a violation of a protective order against Sandra. Vargas goes on to say that “David works to mend his fractured relationship with them..” ignoring  records that reveal all five of the Rucki children had disclosed that Rucki had physically and mentally abused them, and had threatened their lives. The response of the family court was NOT to protect the children, but, instead order them into “deprogramming” and “reunification therapy” to force them to recant abuse allegations, and accept a relationship with Rucki. Court records document the visible fear the children felt towards their father, including one of the children becoming physically ill and having to leave the room after being forced into a session with Rucki.

 

S.R. and G.R. have consistently stated they ran away for one reason, and one reason only – and that is because they were being abused by their father, and feared for their lives because the court was working to place them into his custody. The system, at every level, failed to protect them.

 

Consider this note from the social worker who interviewed S.R. in November 2015, “The police told them not to call unless someone was being killed…

 

When ABC, a major news organization, sympathizes with a violent abuser, and uses its broadcast as a smear campaign against the victims it sends a dangerous message … Does someone really need to be killed before the cries for help from an abused child are taken seriously?

 

Source: More Unedited 20/20 Footage

 

Judge Halbrooks: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Too Poor For Court Costs But Can Pay Child Support

Source: Judge Halbrooks: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Too Poor For Court Costs But Can Pay Child Support

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This is not the first time Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks has ruled on matters related to Grazzini-Rucki.

In September 2012, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered out of her home, out of the state, and ordered not to contact anyone she knew.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Months after a Minnesota Appeal’s Court Judge ruled that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was capable of paying nearly $1,000 per month in child support, the same judge ruled that paying several hundred dollars in her ex-husband’s court costs would be too burdensome.

On December 1, 2017, Minnesota Appeal’s Court Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks ruled on Sandra Grazzini-Rucki paying for David Rucki’s court costs.

“Although David Rucki prevailed on appeal, it appears that allowance of the claimed costs and disbursements would cause financial hardship, in light of the district court’s determination that appellant (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.”

When someone receives in forma pauperis status, they are deemed to poor to afford an attorney.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been represented in her divorce since early 2013 by Michelle MacDonald, who has worked pro-bono since receiving a $5,000 payment at the beginning of the case.

The same Judge, Jill Flaskamps-Halbrooks, ruled in September 2017 that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki had the ability to pay her ex-husband $975 per month in child support, despite Grazzini-Rucki being convicted of six felonies, homeless, and unemployed.

Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks. Source: http://www.mncourts.gov

“Grazzini-Rucki asserts that she had no ability to pay child support because her employment with the airline was ‘in flux’ and that the CSM made ‘vague, generalized and conclusory findings’ that did not justify imputing income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1.5 But these assertions misconstrue the record, particularly the evidence admitted during the September 2016 hearing. The CSM found that after Grazzini-Rucki was released from jail, she submitted a document in March 2016 that stated that she currently worked as a flight attendant Grazzini-Rucki testified, and the CSM acknowledged, that her status of employment was unknown at the time of the September 2016 hearing. But Grazzini-Rucki did not provide any evidence that her employment status had changed or that her employment had been terminated after March 2016.” Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks asserted in her August ruling, when she confirmed that an earlier ruling ordering Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband $975 per month was appropriate.

After Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks ruled in his favor in the child support appeal, his attorney, Lisa Elliott, filed to recoup his court costs.

Elliott did not respond to an email for comment.

David Rucki was granted child support even though he already received 100% of a multi-million-dollar estate which included numerous homes, classic cars, and the entirety of a thriving trucking business.

David Rucki

Rucki was also granted sole custody of the children and Grazzini-Rucki has not been allowed to see her children since early 2013; the divorce decision, handed down by Judge David Knutson, is one of the most one sided in the history of divorces.

Emails to Flaskamps-Halbrooks and Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, were left unreturned.

The original ruling, made by Judge Maria Pastoor, was made in August 2016, while Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was awaiting sentencing for her role in hiding her two oldest daughters after they were forced by the Minnesota court system to live with their father.

Their father, David Rucki, has a long history of abuse including: a bar fighta road rage incidentincidents of stalkingmultiple violations of restraining orders and choking his wife.

A child protective services report stated that his son, Nico, claimed that David Rucki stuck a gun to his head when he was eight years old.

None of this evidence of abuse was allowed into her criminal case by the trial judge, Karen Asphaug.

The judge in their custody matter, David Knutson, also excluded all this evidence when custody was being determined.

This is not the first time Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks has ruled on matters related to Grazzini-Rucki.

In September 2012, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered out of her home, out of the state, and ordered not to contact anyone she knew.

The ruling, made by Judge Knutson, was made after a telephonic conference which Grazzini-Rucki did not participate in.

When Judge Knutson refused to reverse the order, Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, appealed to Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks who said the order was constitutional because it was a temporary order.

Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks also upheld Grazzini-Rucki’s conviction despite nearly all evidence that David Rucki is an abuser being stricken by the trial judge, Karen Asphaug.

There was also witness tampering and jury tampering.

In a police interview approximately a month before the trial, Grazzini-Rucki’s daughter, Samantha, told a police officer that her father was pressuring her to recant previous allegations of abuse.

They (her father and his sister) basically said I have to (go to the interview) and I have to be here, and I have to recant everything I said and it’s going and that’s the way it’s gonna be- and they made me feel guilty about it and I started to cry.” Samantha told the detective in that interview.

Grazzini-Rucki’s defense was that her ex-husband was violent and abusive, and she hid her daughters to protect them from danger.

Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks decided that Grazzini-Rucki received a fair trial despite these issues being presented in appeal.

Beaten Before Born: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Assaulted While Pregnant – Rucki Wanted to Kill Baby Because He “Wasn’t Perfect”

Source: ABC 20/20 Screen Shot

David Rucki is so violent, and so abusive that he beat ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki while pregnant, and assaulted his unborn before the child even took his first breath. As a result of the beating, the child was born prematurely (and suffers with permanent health problems).

This, according to, statements Sandra Grazzini-Rucki made during a heart-wrenching episode of Fighting B.A.C.K. (Aired: 6/19/2017) During the episode, Sandra also reveals that Rucki threatened to harm her children as a way to gain control over her through fear and intimidation.

 

The shocking revelation came when Sandra responded to a guest who was describing her own situation with domestic violence, and how her child was affected. The guest says her abusive ex used her child as a weapon, and would even retaliate by hurting the child, as a way to intimidate and control her. Sandra said that hearing the guest’s story reminded her of the violent marriage she escaped from.

The National Institutes of Health reports that over 300,000 pregnant women in the U.S. are victims to domestic violence, with domestic violence being the leading cause of death among U.S. women of childbearing age.

(Note: This article contains additional information on these incidents, as provided by a confidential source – which are told in the first person voice to illustrate Sandra’s horrifying experience, and told in this way raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence experienced during pregnancy)

Rucki’s Assault on an Unborn Baby: “I was kicked repeatedly in the stomach (because) he was ‘not a perfect child’…”

Imagine the horror Sandra surely experienced and felt: 

Lying on a gurney, hands desperately clutch swollen belly, trying to hold back contractions… as she fades in and out of consciousness, she pleads,”No, no, it’s too soon…”

How would she explain the bruises this time? The violent assault against her unborn left her belly black and blue, bleeding on the inside… she realized too late that she married a demon in the flesh. Raging he stood over her kicking again and again… spit flying from his mouth as he screamed and swore..

Loud voice, someone shouting her name… she screamed and threw her arms out… The beep-beep of a fetal monitor going wild… She struggled to open her eyes, not comprehending, plastic IV tubing twisting as she fought… frightened by the sound of her name being called. Was she safe?

Signs of life.. a faint and erratic heart beat … tiny, seashell shaped knees raised to chest then violently kick out… Even the hospital could not protect her once he realized the baby he tried to kill was now fighting back.

(28:21) Sandra says: “When my youngest child was born, he (David Rucki) was under the belief that this was not going to be a ‘perfect child’ when I was kicked repeatedly into the stomach and went into pre-term labor, and gave birth, and he (Rucki) said, I want him gone rather than have a kid that’s not perfect because it’s more about me than it is about him…”

The child has been permanently affected by the assault inflicted on him while in the womb, and will suffer with lifelong health issues.

Rucki Threatens to Chop Baby Up in a Ceiling Fan

All she wanted was to be a wife and mother, to have a home filled with laughter and children. Instead the children tip-toed through the rooms like ghosts – vainly trying to remain silent and unseen, as if they could avoid their father’s rage.

The children… where were the children? So much they should not see… the violence, the tears… the fake apologies… Hiding somewhere in the house. Hands slammed over their small ears. Tears filling their eyes. They feared not the mythical monster in the closet that most children imagine but the very real monster in the house, their father.

(28:06) Sandra says: “When my oldest child was 3 months old, my ex-husband David Rucki grabbed him from the bassinet, held him up to a ceiling fan and said, ‘You will do as I say or he is going into the fan…’”

(29:03) Sandra says: “Sometimes when you talk about things it reminds me of things that David Rucki did and yet these are the men that have our children… You talk about this and I know, I will never forget when David held the baby up to the ceiling fan and said ‘You do what I say or he’s (chokes on words) .. they have no concern for the child, it’s more of a control issue…”

Rucki Promised to Change But Then Threatened to Kill Sandra, and the Children

Runaway Rucki Teen, G.R. also stated,…He showed anger like, ‘I’m going to kill you…’ “ (Social Service Report, November 2015:  Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns)

Sandra says during the marriage, Rucki repeatedly promised to change but always resorted back to his abusive behavior. Sandra says Rucki even threatened to kill “your children” if she did not comply with his demands.

Sandra says physical, mental and sexual abuse existed in the generations of the Rucki family and influenced David Rucki’s abusive behavior and attitude towards his own children. David Rucki promised Sandra that he would not abuse his own children the way he was abused by his father, and the way he witnessed his father abuse his sisters. Cut from the same fabric, David Rucki, in the end, turned out to be just as abusive, and dangerous to his own children as Fred Rucki was to him, and his sisters.

Family Court: The Two Options That Trap Victims of Domestic Violence

Judge David L Knutson (Dakota County, MN)

I think that is so sad that as a parent in an abusive relationship, why is it that your two options are: stay, being abused, have your child grow up in this environment filled with insecurities, tension and violence or leave and risk losing your child and continuing to suffer… – Comment from “Fighting Back” Guest, a Mother also involved in family court who lost custody of her baby to an alleged abuser

Sandra says that her children went to everyone asking for help and that every level of the system has failed to protect them.

Instead of protecting children, family court Judge David L Knutson, Dakota County, has assisted David Rucki in every step through the legal process to continue to abuse, torment and attempt to kill Sandra by making it impossible to survive. Judge Knutson has also endangered the lives of all 5 Rucki children by placing them under the care, custody and ultimately the control of David Rucki. Even as adults the Rucki children have been unable to escape their father and live independent lives of their own due to his violence against them.

For More Info on Grazzini-Rucki Case: Dakota County Corrupt Courthouse Event: Tour Infamous Court at Center of the Grazzini-Rucki Case

Attack Blogger Michael Brodkorb Caught Spreading Misinformation on #Evavold Appeal

Michael Cindy Bradykorb Can’t Read Court Documents

Missing in Minnesota

Missing in Minnesota

“UPDATE: Dede Evavold loses appeal of her criminal conviction

The Clerk of Appellate Courts has rejected Dede Evavold’s petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court because Evavold’s petition was not properly filed.”

 

MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Appeal 2017

Reply Brief Evavold

Preventing Child Abuse from Turning Into the Texas Church Shooting & Grazzini-Rucki Case Discussed on “The Long Version”

Public Domain: pxhere.com

There were red flags, people spoke up, and the system failed..” ~ Melanie Blow

Title: “Preventing Child Abuse from Turning Into the #TexasChurchShooting

The Long Version” with Fletcher Long features two guests – writer and abuse advocate, Doreen Sims and Melanie Blow, scientist and activist and the NY Project Director of the Stop Abuse Campaign.

Date: November 10, 2017

Fletcher Long has the distinct privilege of hosting Melanie Blow and Doreen Sims regarding ways in which being subjected to abuse may have lent itself to the Devin Kelley #TexasChurchShooting scenario.

 

Second Half of the Show (1:01) Discussion on Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case

 

Additional Topics: Domestic Violence, Family Court, Concerns with how Family Court Treats Domestic Violence Victims, and Allegations of Abuse