(Dakota County, Minn, 1/21/2018) Michael Volpe investigates mortgage fraud in the Grazzini-Rucki case: David Rucki Commits Apparent Mortgage Fraud
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The initial document which started this investigation was sent by Michael Brodkorb, who runs a blog dedicated to bad mouthing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and anyone who supports her, to an Angie Young.
He sent it to Young because the initial document is signed A. Young and Angie Young is neighbors with Dede Evavold, a supporter of Grazzini-Rucki.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As his divorce was heating up, David Rucki engaged in blatant and brazen mortgage fraud.
According to the tract search, on June 3, 2011, the mortgage on Rucki’s Lakeville home was satisfied, meaning it was paid off, but inexplicably, his house was then foreclosed on- only to have him or his agents buy it back at auction every time- and sold at auction four times.
Rucki continues to own the property with numerous dubious and potentially fraudulent entries.
In the first case, Deutsche Bank Trust is listed as a brand-new mortgagor, the one providing the loan, on June 30, 2012.
On October 11, 2012, as part of a foreclosure, Deutsche Bank Trust was removed as the mortgagor in pen on the property and Wallingford Capital was written in instead.
Lawton King at Deutsche Bank said the loan was being serviced by Ocwen which provided this statement: “This loan is not in our system. We also checked different variation.”
Deutsche Bank, and their public affairs officer Lawton King, did not provide any further details on what happened to the loan.
According to the same document, Wallingford Capital then assumed this loan of $140,365 at 4.75%, an unusually low rate for a property bought at foreclosure, but David Rucki continued to remain in the property. Wallingford Capital did not return a message for comment.
The law firm Shapiro and Zielke was listed as handling the sale; their managing partner, Lawrence Zielke, issued this statement.
“This was a public sale. We do not control which party bids at sale. I suggest you consult with your own real estate lawyer so counsel can walk your through this process. I have nothing further to say on this matter.”
But Sandra Grazzini-Rucki said she spoke with a realtor who tried to attend one of the four so-called foreclosure sales; the realtor said they were not allowed in and the sale was done privately, with no prior public announcement, and not publicly as is supposed to be done.
Zielke had no further comment.
In another case, Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliott, places an attorney’s lien on Rucki’s property in the amount of $60,000 on July 12, 2012.
Elliott, who has represented Rucki in his divorce starting around this time, did not respond to an email for comment.
She then transferred that lien to NJD Properties which then transferred the lien to Danmark Properties.
Brian Hoelscher represented NJD in the transaction: “I had a look at title and have attached the tract history. Mr. Rucki’s attorney had a lien on the property from the divorce, the first mortgage went into foreclosure so my client bought the attorney lien to be in line to redeem as a junior creditor in the event that Mr. Rucki did not redeem as owner. That is a typical transaction for my client. I advised my client to get a confirmation from the debtor as to the validity of the attorney lien (which is the document to which you were referring that I drafted) since the lien is involuntary and without the confirmation could be contested and found ultimately worthless.
“My client bought the lien and soon thereafter sold the position to Danmark Properties LLC. Mr. Rucki redeemed as the owner and Danmark Properties LLC had a foreclosure sale to enforce the attorney lien. Mr. Rucki again redeemed as the owner. It looks like he still owns it subject to existing liens including the 2nd mortgage in favor of Excel Bank recorded as Document No. 2263968 (unless that was paid but never satisfied of record) as well as other possible lien(s) and the mortgage he took out in 2015. It doesn’t look like he avoided any of the liens so I am not sure where you got your information. In any event, to the extent that anything nefarious was occurring, it certainly did not involve my client.”
But according to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, this explanation makes no sense. First, Elliott had only started to represent David Rucki, it’s not clear how she even racked up $60,000 in fees if it had been less than a month. (It’s noteworthy that he now demands child support from the homeless Sandra Grazzini-Rucki)
Second, she said the divorce judge, Judge David Knutson, ordered that this lien be paid from the trust of her parents.
Knutson ordered 100% of the marital estate to go to David Rucki, ordered that Sandra Grazzini-Ruck pay child support and alimony, along with ordering that David Rucki receive sole custody of the children.
Knutson did not respond to an email for comment.
Finally, David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who should have no trouble paying a $60,000 debt.
Danmark properties then pops up again on the tract search as the purchaser of a loan at a foreclosure auction on December 18, 2013.
But David Rucki continued to live in the property throughout, he then purchased the property at another foreclosure auction on June 10, 2014.
In other words, he didn’t have money to pay for the monthly mortgage payment but somehow had enough money to purchase the entire mortgage.
Then, Lisa Elliott transferred yet another lien to David Rucki on March 10, 2014. It’s not clear what lien this is as she had supposedly sold her lien to NJD Properties.
Danmark Properties did not respond to an email for comment.
Finally, David Rucki then transferred to mortgage to his parent’s trust on April 29, 2015, and that trust currently owns the property which he lives on.
He also owns three other homes.
The initial document which started this investigation was sent by Michael Brodkorb, who runs a blog dedicated to bad mouthing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and anyone who supports her, to an Angie Young.
He sent it to Young because the initial document is signed A. Young and Angie Young is neighbors with Dede Evavold, a supporter of Grazzini-Rucki.
Young denied making the document and Brodkorb said: “You clearly received this document from Mrs. Evavold, as it contains the file I named and sent to Mrs. Young.
“Mrs. Young confirmed tonight that she did not author this document in 2013, and the authenticity of the underlying document is in doubt.
“This won’t stop you from publishing it again, but I cannot publish this document since the alleged author denies the document is truthful.”
But Young, in an interview with me, didn’t deny the document’s truthfulness but having put it together entirely.
Brodkorb had no comment on how a property could be foreclosed on so many times by a multi-millionaire and the numerous disappearing mortgages.
I also sent these documents to 20/20 and the President of ABC, Channing Dungey, without response, however less than a week after sending these documents Elizabeth Vargas surprised the media world by announcing she was leaving ABC after more than two decades with the network.
It’s not clear if the two events are correlated.
20/20 ignored a mountain of evidence of abuse in favor of painting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki as mentally unstable and not providing any evidence of abuse.
Grazzini-Rucki said a source in ABC said 20/20 made a secret deal with David Rucki about which questions he could be asked and even gave him editing power over the broadcast.
Vargas and the two producers- Sean Dooley and Beth Mullens- of the 20/20 broadcast of this story declined to respond to numerous emails when I raised this allegation.
Dungey also declined to respond to emails to confirm or deny this allegation. Lisa Elliott also did not respond to emails to confirm or deny this allegation.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, IT IS INFORMATIONAL IN NATURE AND BASED ON ARTICLES THAT ARE ON LINE; TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THE FORUM: FIRST: I do not understand why, the hearing/probation is in Hastings? Next, any criminal case where the alleged person, who is the defendant may have the case moved to their home or district. Change of venue…the defendant has the right to ‘discovery’ that is in the law, i.e. state constitution…As to the age of the tagged juveniles; Associated press clearly states the ages of two missing females
Associated Press 11/19/2015 sixteen and seventeen… mathematically they are eighteen plus…as of today…this smacks of “‘An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex post facto, lit. ‘out of the aftermath’) is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts. A pardon has a similar effect, in a specific case instead of a class of cases. Other legal changes may alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such legal changes are also known by the Latin term in mitius.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a previous law is repealed or otherwise nullified, it is no longer applicable to situations to which it had been, even if such situations arose before the law was voided. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of such laws is called nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, especially in European Continental systems. This is related to the principle of legality.
Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. In a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.” Wikipedia, under the creative commons licensing…2017. NO, they from Dakota County did not provide you with complete discovery…I was accountant for scientist and it was mandatory to provide full disclosure…when, a transaction was changed, the accountant can only draw a thin line through and required by FASB to initial each error or correction…in addition, any CR by law is required to transcribed hearings “verbatim.” Since this situation is extensive, I am limiting my feedback. However, I am seeing/ reading allot of RED FLAGS ARE POPPING UP…. IN ADDITION: NEWSWEEK PRESENTED THE ARTICLE: Did the Missing Rucki Sisters Want To Be Found?
By Max Kutner On 11/21/15 at 4:25 PM, THIS CAN BE BROUGHT UP BY CORTANA…GOOGLE…WHY ARE THEY NOT IN COURT OR FACING LAWSUITS FOR LEAVING THESE ARTICLES UP FOR DISCOVERY ON THIS DATE…11/1/2017. This whole thing smacks of ‘crisis creating and persecution.’ Read NewsWeek article…they boldly reveal many details, including this ‘site.’ When this issue came about involving the blogger being charged with a crime…now…with the revocation…they are arbitrarily stacking your criminal points so you go to prison…plus costing taxpayers money on frivolous actions. These kids they are arbitrarily defining would be charged as juveniles in court as “truant.” IFF, they had committed any other crime they would have been prosecuted as such…..WHY WOULD THEY EMAIL YOU THIS INFORMATION? In a court of law, they required hard copies of any or all documents and or evidence that fits under the criteria for the “chain of evidence.” AS POPS USED TO SAY….SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK…FISH IS NOT THE SKUNK IN THIS CASE…
Per the Intrastate Case Transfer Policy under Section A, subsection 4.B; any felony offender assessed low risk with other than financial, same similar, abstain conditions are ineligible for transfer.
I could not find what you tagged as Intrastate case transfer policy with SECTION A. subsection.4.B. in Minnesota.
http://www.doc.state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?Opt=206.020.htm |http://www.doc.state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?Opt=201.020.htm
What, I do know is that any case adjudicated is to follow the guidelines under Minnesota Department of Corrections. their authority is based on listed MN. Statutes. Change of venue would occur in/before the actual determining adjudication.
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Division Directive: 201.020 Title: Post-Sentencing Activities
Issue Date: 9/6/11
Effective Date: 10/4/11
AUTHORITY: Minn Stat. §§ 609.165; 609.14; 243.05, subd. 1(d), subd. 1a, subd. 6; 243.166, subd. 4(b); 244.20; 244.24; 244.057; 256J.26; 243.1605
Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 27.04
PURPOSE: To safeguard the community and meet the program needs of offenders.
APPLICABILITY: All Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) field services staff.
DIRECTIVE: Agents must supervise offenders in accordance with this directive.
DEFINITION:
Recreation/leisure activities – pro-social activities that contribute to the optimal development of each individual by improvement of recreation skills, health, well-being, and quality of life.
PROCEDURES:
A. Case assignment: upon receipt of either a transcript of sentencing or a court’s notice to the department, the designated field services staff activates a case file and assigns an agent. The assigned agent is responsible for the case until the case is discharged, revoked, or officially transferred to another agent.
B. Face sheet/post-sentence investigation: the agent completes a face sheet or post-sentence investigation (court service tracking system (CSTS) merge documents) for cases that did not receive a pre-sentence investigation within 30 days of the notice of sentencing or court notification. Each section must be completed as follows:
1. Client information: fill out completely.
2. Offense information: fill out completely.
3. Prior record: a chronological list of prior convictions including date of offense, offense, location, and disposition.
4. Offense/official version: an official statement of the offense summarized to include the basics (who, what, when and how the offense occurred). It is not permissible to attach a complaint or other document in lieu of the official version.
5. Defendant’s version: the defendant’s statement of the offense.
6. Disposition: the sentence, including all special information, imposed by the court.
7. Special conditions: fill in completely.
8. Victim: fill in completely.
9. Education/training: fill in completely.
10. Employment/military: fill in completely.
11. Family data: fill in completely.
C. Probation agreement: the agent must complete the Probation Agreement (CSTS merge document) immediately after the offender is placed on probation, but no longer than 30 days following sentencing. If the offender moves to another area before the Probation Agreement can be prepared and executed, the agent must send the prepared, unsigned agreement (along with a Transfer Investigation Request) to the agent in the receiving area for execution of the Probation Agreement. The format for the Probation Agreement is as follows:
1. Heading: fill out completely.
2. Special conditions: list the special conditions imposed by the court. The special conditions must be typed on the agreement before it is signed and witnessed.
D. Case recordings: agents must promptly document all contact with and about an offender by recording a chronological entry in the CSTS preceded by the appropriate codes identifying the type of contact conducted.