“Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.” ~Lord Acton~
In this audio, Tim Kinley and Dede Evavold discuss the rampant judicial misconduct in Dakota County and MN with State Representative Tony Cornish. Cornish is the Chairman of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee.
The Minnesota House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee oversees and funds all areas within public safety, including the court system, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and other corrections and justice programs.
Below are random excerpts from the video:
Tim Kinley: It’s the legislature’s job to oversee the judiciary. We’ve got one of the most corrupt courts in the nation and the reason is because MN is able to hide it so well. While alot of other states are finding judges that are getting paid off and doing other things and getting caught and having the legislature deal with it, our state does nothing. They don’t even look at it. There’s been no official hearings since 2004.
Rep. Cornish: To tell you the truth, I’m about the worst person to come and ask because I get along well with judges, I write ’em letters for a reference to place them in their positions… So I’m about the worst person in the world to come and ask for a hearing on the claim that our court is corrupt.
Tim Kinley: The problem is, it’s the legislature’s responsibility.
Rep. Cornish: We don’t bring judges in front of us and have tribunals.
Tim Kinley: Why not? You can, you should.
Rep. Cornish: I suppose we can do anything we want to. As far as a hearing, I can have any type of hearing I want to. I don’t know, I guess we have a big disconnect, I don’t see the corruption that you do.
Tim Kinley: Well you’re not willing to hear about it.
Rep Cornish: I’ve been hearing about it for at least… 2 people came all the way down to Good Thunder to talk about it. I’m sorry I’m just not interested. I don’t want to have a hearing like that. <– Note: As a Member of the House of Representatives, it is Rep. Cornish’s job to represent the constituents or people, and defend their well-being… and NOT promote his own personal interests or agenda!
Tim Kinley: Our structure, as far as judicial discipline and our constitution, is the same as the federal. House hears the case, senate for impeachment and the senate if they impeach, try it. That’s our system, that’s in our constitution. It just hasn’t happened.
Rep. Cornish:See, this is the whole thing with me is that the complaints usually come from somebody who felt they were wronged and they want to right it. If they’ve lost a case in our system, I’m supposed to somehow believe the whole system went wrong?
Tim Kinley: Well the whole system here is a prosecutor and judge.
Rep. Cornish: I don’t know what to believe. I think it would just be another case of “he said she said” and everybody would be frustrated and mad on both sides, and we would accomplish nothing.
(Note: This is very reason why a hearing is needed – to take testimony, review evidence and conduct an independent inquiry!)
Tim Kinley: Checks and balances. It is a separate branch of government, but each branch has a checks and balance. The checks and balance on the judiciary is nonexistent from the legislature. When you’ve got a Board of Judicial Standards that’s beholden to the Judiciary, they all get their licenses from the Supreme Court, you can’t say anything bad about the court. It’s just unbelievable that you have over 400 and some judges in the state and over the last one hundred years none of them have done anything wrong? It’s just impossible, the odds are against it.
“The rule of law was not adhered to and the entire trial was simulated litigation… ALL Judge Knutson’s orders are not merely voidable, these orders are already VOID.” ~ K.B. Complaint Against Judge Knutson
“Shame on you for allowing this family to be torn apart by your orders. Shame on you for forcing children into a relationship with a father they are terrified of. Shame on you for forcing these children to make the drastic decision to go on the run in order to protect themselves…In cases like this I have to wonder how our system got to the point that destroying families in today’s society is ok.” ~ L.M. letter to Judge David Knutson
(Hastings, Minn) A complaint filed against Judge David L. Knutson on September 4, 2013, outlines his mishandling of the Grazzini-Rucki case. The complaint also describes how Judge Knutson’s reckless actions contributed to ongoing chaos in the lives of the Rucki children, and deprived Sandra Grazzini-Rucki of her rights. The complaint concludes that Judge Knutson acted with malice, that there is no other reasonable explanation for his conduct.
According to the complaint, “The record on case no. 19AV-FA-11-1273 shows a disturbing pattern where throughout, Judge Knutson has engaged in multiple acts of misconduct and actual bias, has repeatedly violated parties rights, and consistently fails to follow the law…
Judge Knutson has repeatedly denied the mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) any and all contact with her children without any findings of endangerment, abuse or parental unfitness. In addition, throughout this case, Judge Knutson has made absurd statements in an attempt to somehow justify abuses of discretion.“
The complaint accuses Judge Knutson of a “pervasive pattern of misconduct and impropriety” that includes:
-Bias, “acts for improper purpose to deny one party’s fundamental rights“
-Making false statements of material facts
-Failure to follow the law
-Failure to follow the children’s “Best Interest”
-That Judge Knutson ordered Sandra to use specific providers he hand selected under the guise of therapy; yet these providers do not provide therapy. Rather, they provide forensic evidence for use against the mother.
-Judge Knutson abused his authority by forcing Sandra, under the threat of arrest, to disclose her location and phone number to a known abuser (whom she received a protective order against). This directly contradicts a Minnesota law requiring judges to protect victims of stalking and abuse, and to prevent such disclosures of information to the abuser.
On September 11, 2013, attorney Michelle MacDonald filed a Federal Civil Rights Action against Judge Knutson on behalf on Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.
The Grazzini-Rucki custody trial commenced one week after this complaint was filed, on September 12, 2013. Which means that Judge Knutson was under investigation while presiding over a case that he was accused of misconduct on. Judge Knutson was also presiding over a case while a Federal Civil Rights Action against him was pending.
At the beginning of trial, MacDonald asked Judge Knutson to recuse himself, which he refused to do stating, “With respect to you notifying me that I’ve been made party to some Federal lawsuit for civil rights violations, I’m not aware of that. I have no information about that. I’m not concerned about that. We’re going to proceed…” MacDonald presses on, reminding Judge Knutson that she wrote him a letter to inform him about the lawsuit. Judge Knutson’s initial response is evasive then he admits he did receive notice of the lawsuit, and recounts some details. Which means Judge Knutson is caught lying in court. Judge Knutson refuses to recuse himself, and moves forward with trial stating “I‘m not going to hold that against your client or prejudice your client for something you do” and states a Federal Civil Rights Action is “irrelevant“.
The Board of Judicial Standards responded on November 12, 2013, and determined, despite overwhelming evidence of each of these claims, that the complaint “required no further action“. The Board further determined that the allegations did not sway them to take disciplinary action because the merits were not proven with a “clear and convincing standard“. It is unclear if the Board was aware of Judge Knutson’s conduct during the custody trial.
The Civil Rights Action faced a similar fate, excusing Judge Knutson’s actions under the guide of judicial immunity.
On November 25, 2013, David Rucki is granted sole custody of all 5 children. At the time of the order he was on probation for a guilty plea involving an OFP violation (Case No. 19AV-CR-11-14682, discharged from probation 10/17/2014. Judge Karen Asphaug conducted pre-trial on that case).
On February 11, 2014, Judge Knutson filed a complaint against attorney Michelle MacDonald with the Lawyer’s Board. MacDonald said about the complaint, “Judge Knutson’s complaint came after I complained about to him to the Board of Judicial Standards about this: On September 12, 2013, Judge Knutson had me participate as an attorney in a client’s child custody trial in handcuffs, a wheelchair, with no shoes, no glasses, no paper, no pen, no files,missing children – and no client. This was the day after I had filed a federal civil rights action against him, on behalf of that client…” MNBar.org Michelle MacDonald Candidate Information A hearing was recently held concerning the complaint against MacDonald, a ruling has not been issued at the time of this blog post.
Judge Knutson now sits as a member on the Board of Judicial Standards. No one in the family court system has been held accountable for the disastrous results of the Grazzini-Rucki case despite numerous complaints being filed.
When abuse allegations, and concerns for the safety of the Rucki children, were raised in this case the Court’s focus was not on the welfare of the children but instead pursued a dangerous agenda. Instead of protecting the children from harm, Judge Knutson and the various professionals involved, inflicted of trauma on children to force reunification with the parent they feared by taking an “assertive stance..to expose them to the object of their fear” and to “desensitize them“. (Dr. Gilbertson Letter). The Court sought to silence by any means, the parent, Sandra, who sought to protect the children and thereby, stood in the way. The events that led up to the Rucki girls running away is a direct result of the court’s own failings.
Had Judge Knutson, the professionals, appropriately responded to abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children and worked to protect them, there might have been a different outcome than a family completely destroyed; and children who may never recover from the abuses inflicted on them.
HASTINGS, Minnesota, September 23, 2016- “Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been sentenced to six years’ probation and an extra one hundred and eight days in jail for her role in her two daughters’ running away.
Judge Asphaug imposed the unusual sentence after disallowing nearly all of the evidence Grazzini-Rucki intended to use in support of her affirmative defense. Grazzini-Rucki argued that she hid her daughters to protect them from an unsafe environment.
Child Protection reports, including one made by Nico Rucki in which he claimed his father held a gun to his head, were also disallowed.…”
This article by Michael Volpe discusses the allegations of abuse raised by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children, and describes the dramatic events leading up to the disappearance of the Rucki sisters. It also includes Sandra’s full statement, to be read by her family law attorney, after sentencing.
Volpe attempted to contact numerous sources for comment including Judge Asphaug, Beau Berentson public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, the Lakeville police, the Dakota County Prosecutor’s office, attorney Lisa Elliott and others, who did not respond.
Volpe also attempted to contact reporter Brandon Stahl to ask several questions about the case – including asking Stahl why he has declined to write about Rucki’s extensive criminal history, and declined to write about S. Rucki’s June 30, 2016 interview with police.
Volpe reports: “In that interview Samantha Rucki said she was pressured into recanting by her father, running away was her idea, and she reiterated her father was an abuser .
She recanted when called as a witness saying she ran away to get away from the divorce but Judge Asphaug refused to allow her June 30 interview into evidence at Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s trial.” In the June 30 interview with police, S. Rucki said she was pressured and “guilted” into recanting by Rucki and Tammy Jo Love.
During the criminal trial, Judge Asphaug took the unusual move to have S. Rucki testify by Skype, and out of view of the jury. David Rucki, paternal aunt Tammy Jo Love, grandmother Vicki Rucki, and attorney Lisa Elliott, were all in the room but remained out of view of the jury. Judge Asphaug also limited the questions the Defense was allowed to ask, thereby making their defense ineffective.
Lori Musolf, potential witness to be called by the State in the parental deprivation case against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki wrote a letter to Judge Knutson in May 2013, asserting her belief that the Rucki children were abused by their father, David Rucki, and were “terrified” of him. Lori criticizes Judge Knutson’s handling of the case and desperately prays “that the MN Appellant Court will put a stop to this insanity”.
With such strong beliefs, how did Lori become a potential witness for the State? And with such a drastic change in her story, does she have any credibility?
Lori Musolf: “I hate corrupt
judicial and social services
may they rot in hell.”
Lori describes herself as an “investigator”, “advocate” and “child advocate”. She also claims to have worked with Fox 9 news. Through the Carver County Corruption blog, she began to network with and offer her support to parents involved in family court proceedings. Lori explains in a Twitter post, “Sometimes people have to stand up to corrupt government.”
Lori’s main interest was in exposing perceived corruption in Meeker County. She worked with a group of citizens in these efforts and with the help of Trish van Pilsum from Fox 9, garnered publicity when van Pilsum covered two separate stories based on the Meeker citizen group’s efforts.
Below is a video of Lori hard at work in “exposing corruption” in Meeker County.
Lori’s Letter to Judge David Knuston –
You Have Sentenced the Rucki Children
to a Life of Pure Hell and Danger
Judge David L Knutson
Lori’s letter to Judge Knutson was published on the Carver County Corruption blog in May 2013. Though the blog has been taken down, we were able to get a copy, with screenshots to validate its existence.
In the letter, Lori says about the Rucki girls “these young girls are obviously terrified of David Rucki. For these two teenagers to be on the run, obviously they are scared for their lives.”
Lori also criticizes Judge Knutson and says that he has made some “huge mistakes”.Lori writes to Judge Knutson “ I sincerely hope that you can look at ALL of the facts of this case, realize that you have made some huge mistakes, allowed other huge mistakes to be made and that you will someday allow these children to live their lives in the home where they feel protected. ”
Lori also warns Judge Knutson, “In my opinion David Rucki is a loose cannon and you are playing right into his hands.”
After the Rucki girls ran away from the (temporary) custody of paternal aunt, Tammy Love, on April 19, 2013, they reached out to Lori for help(from the police report generated by Det. Dronen on 8/6/2015),“Musolf told me that a day or two after S and G ran away from home, one of them had called herbut she didn’t know which one. The girls told her that they wanted to tell their story to the media, and her to try to use her connections to get their story on the news. Musolf stated that the girls would not tell her were they were or give them a phone number to call them back but told her they would call her every half an hour or so to try and arrange an interview.”
The Rucki girls did call as promised, and each time they made contact Lori had an opportunity to call the police or notify the authorities on the whereabouts of these two missing children. She could have even made an anonymous report if she had any fear or concern. Lori consciously, and intentionally, chose NOT to make that call, as her phone rang every half hour, she spoke to the Rucki girls, and offered her support.
In May 2013, Lori arranged an interview between the Rucki girls and Trish van Pilsum of Fox 9, (police report),”She was present when the interview was conducted, and has asked the girls when it was over if they were safe, and they told her they were. She saw S and G walking to a fast food restaurant to get picked up when Musolf and van Pilsum left Sauk Center to interview Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.” After the interview aired, Musolf assisted the girls by actively promoting their story, sharing web links and speaking out against what she viewed a “corrupt court system” that was responsible for their suffering. As time passed, Lori remained silent on what she knew about the missing girls, protecting them still.
Lori’s Story Changes… with a Little Help from Michael Brodkorb
With such strong beliefs, how did Lori become a potential witness for the State? This means Lori is defending the “corrupt” family court system she once opposed. Why??
According to the police report, on July 24, 2015 Brandon Stahl called Det. Dronen to inquire about updates on the case and discuss a tip that he had received. That tip led police to speak to a witness who then mentioned Lori Musolf by name, and made this statement, “..if Sandra knew where the girls were, Musolf would know as well.” The witness then provided Det. Dronen with Lori’s contact information. But before Det. Dronen could find Lori, Michael Brodkorb had already located her and spoken to her. This is clearly interference in an open police investigation.
Officer Dronen. Source: sunthisweek.com
Lori says in her August 6, 2015 police interview with Officer Dronen that she was once a strong supporter of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki until she started reading articles written in the Star Tribune, and began to doubt the abuse allegations she once defended, “She began to take notice of the case when Brandon Stahl and Michael Brodkorb’s articles began appearing in the Star Tribune.”
Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com
Lori’s doubts were reinforced when she spoke to Brodkorb, what information he shared with her is unknown, (from the police report) “She also stated that she had been contacted by Michael Brodkorb on 8/2/15. While she told me she didn’t tell Brodkorb anything, she stated that it really made her start digging into the case.”
Lori must have known that her involvement with the Rucki girls could lead to criminal charges.From the police report, ”Musolf told me that she thought the friends (name omitted to protect their privacy) given Brodkorb her number, and she believed they were trying to pin things on her.” Friends gave Lori’s phone number to Brodkorb… keep in mind the lead that led police to these “friends” came from Brandon Stahl.
Has Lori made a deal at the expense of the Rucki girls?
Lori has never been criminally charged with her involvement in the case, though she clearly has aided and abetted two runaway teens.
Edited versions of Musolf’s statement were included in criminal complaints against the Dahlens and were also included in the search warrant application for Dede Evavold. Lori may also be called as a witness to testify against Sandra. Did Lori make a deal to avoid charges?
Lori wrote to Judge Knutson, “David Rucki has a history of domestic abuse witnessed by these same children. How can you possibly think that putting these children’s lives in danger is ok?” Answer that Lori.
Given that the State’s case has largely relied on suppressing evidence and witness testimony of abuse, stalking and violent behavior from David Rucki, if Lori is called to the witness stand, and this letter is introduced, it may be one of few allegations of abuse, and related documentation, brought to the jury.
That is, if court does not interfere with Lori’s vacation.
Letter From Child Advocate To Judge David L. Knutson
Posted on May 20, 2013
Dear Judge David L. Knutson,
As an advocate I am appalled at your court orders involving the Rucki case. I cannot fathom why you think teenagers have no choices in their lives, especially children who believe their lives are in danger. I hope you watched the Fox9 report on the Rucki case. I would like to point out a few things that I believe you may want to think about.
First, these young girls are obviously terrified of David Rucki. For these two teenagers to be on the run, obviously they are scared for their lives.
Did you notice how obvious it was that David Rucki knew exactly what conversation the girls talked about concerning the threats of him shooting them?
Quotes from the fox9 story “The Rucki girls told FOX 9 their father sat them down at the kitchen table and threatened to shoot them and their mother.” David states, “What I think I said is, ‘What do you want me to do? Put a bullet in my head so you don’t have to deal with this?’”
Think? He obviously was in a rage during this conversation.
David Rucki has a history of domestic abuse witnessed by these same children. How can you possibly think that putting these children’s lives in danger is ok? What could you possibly be thinking?
David Rucki said the Rucki case file is the biggest in Dakota County Family Court. Is he proud of this? Why would he even elaborate on that if he didn’t take some pride in it? Former owner of Rucki trucking? I hope his employees found this amusing and come forward.
Second, David Rucki’s attorney Ms. Elliot claims, and I quote from the Fox9 story, “He probably did have a short temper. There were five kids. Things get crazy. Did he ever harm them? No,” said Elliot. “Maybe he didn’t try hard enough to stay in contact with them when this was going on thinking if things would calm down, it would go back to the way it was — but it went in the other direction.” He probably did have a short temper. Obviously he did if he is talking about shooting himself in the head. “There were five kids. Things get crazy.” Wow, really? I have five children and four grandchildren and nothing in my home has been crazy enough to allow me to be violent or threaten my children. Ms. Elliot also stated, “Did he ever harm them… No” How could Ms. Elliot possibly know this? Was she there? Unbelievable that someone in the field of law could make such ridiculous statements as if they were facts. I believe Ms. Elliot has done this repeatedly throughout this case. Such a sad case when a judge allows someone like Ms. Elliot to conduct herself in this manner. Is Ms. Elliot the person running the show making you look like a fool?
Ms. Elliot goes on to state, “”They tried three different therapists or professionals in the Twin Cities to try reunification while the children were still living with their mom and it just didn’t work,” Do you really think that reunification with a threatening abusive person should work? These children are terrified of this man and they know that neither you or the therapists on this case will listen and have sentenced them to a life of pure hell and danger. This is absolutely appalling. How can you sentence these children to this life?
Third, Mr. Reitman reeks bias in this case. How can he even consider the fact that only the mother has created parental alienation? Have you heard the audio’s of David Rucki’s messages to his children blaming their mom for everything? What is even more appalling is the fact that what I would refer to as a “hired gun”, Mr. Reitman, believes that children should be forced to visit with a father, even if sexual abuse is an issue, because of lack of evidence. Are children supposed to say, “Hold on dad, I have to get the video camera to record this as evidence?” I can only hope the sexual abuse advocates go after any license this monster holds. I would say this story exposed Mr. Reitman for what he is……a monster!
Last but not least…. Shame on you for allowing this family to be torn apart by your orders. Shame on you for forcing children into a relationship with a father they are terrified of. Shame on you for forcing these children to make the drastic decision to go on the run in order to protect themselves. Shame on David Rucki for threatening these children and helping to destroy their lives with his continuing insane actions. Shame on Ms. Elliot for allowing any of this and defending this father. Shame on Dr Reitman for his sadistic beliefs. Shame on our judicial system for not making all of you accountable for your actions.
In cases like this I have to wonder how our system got to the point that destroying families in today’s society is ok. I think of all of the children that have been murdered by their parents in disputes and I have to wonder how you could put those children in this position. How will you feel if the next time David Rucki loses control, one of these children are severely injured or worse yet dead. In my opinion David Rucki is a loose cannon and you are playing right into his hands.
I sincerely hope that you can look at ALL of the facts of this case, realize that you have made some huge mistakes, allowed other huge mistakes to be made and that you will someday allow these children to live their lives in the home where they feel protected. How can you possibly think that putting children in danger is the thing to do? I can’t even begin to wrap my head around your reasoning. I can only pray that the MN Appellant Court puts a stop to this insanity.
Justice for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Children 