Dakota County ramps up efforts to silence blogger Dede Evavold, of “Red Herring Alert”, despite Freedom of Speech protections guaranteed by the Constitution.Shocking revelations from the largely redacted evidence that Evavold received in the case reveal that Dakota County is issuing a probation violation against her, and threatening jail, when there is no proof to suggest that Evavold did anything wrong..7/19/2017, Gilbertsen, John P: “I was able to locate a speicif article reference by the victim (David Rucki) and it did contain information and commentary on the victim(s), much what was negative and sensationalistic in nature. However, I was unable to determine who in fact runs the blog, as the postings are under Aliases which do not clearly identify the person posting…”
And,“When I reported back to Supervisor Griffin I indicated I did not feel there was information that we could glean that make it clear Ms. Evavold is the writer or runs the blog..”
All charges against Dede Evavold in this fraudulent HRO should be dropped – there is no evidence of harassment, and no evidence that she is responsible for the posts in question.
My contested probation revocation hearing is scheduled tomorrow (Nov. 2nd) in Hastings. This is just continued misconduct of public employees by intentionally and unlawfully attempting to harm me under the color of official authority. Even if I wasn’t falsely convicted, this would not be lawful or justified!
“It is unjust for an accused to be troubled for an unreasonable length of time with the physical, emotional and material burdens of endless criminal prosecution.” As a matter of Fact By Sara Soliven De Guzman
Below is a portion of evidence I recieved that is redacted to the point that it is meaningless. Apparently, all items required to be disclosed have been provided to me. On the Contact Detail page 12, it states that “this blog appears to be a conspiracty blog, though much of the attention appears to revolve around the case in which Ms. Evavold is one of the conspirators.” (Exactly, am I gagged from discussing my own case???)
“The most disturbing item of note was a video of the police interview of one of the apparently juvenile victims. It appears posting this item possibly may be a violation of privacy laws, particularly as the victim was a juvenile.” First of all, the victim was an adult when she was forcibly brought into the Lakeville Police Dept. to recant her testimony. This resulted in the addition of 4 more felonies against me instead of dismissal of the case. Secondly, this was posted prior to my trial and false conviction. The fact that the community corrections supervisor was troubled by the video and not the fact that witness tampering occurred and charges were trumped up against me, is extremely troubling to me.
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.
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.
* Share links to websites, articles, radio show that discuss Sandra’s story and case on social media or in other groups/pages (see list of websites below) or with friends, family, networks.
* When sharing articles on Facebook about Sandra or commenting about the Grazzini-Rucki case, click “check in” and then type Dakota County Judicial Center
*Write the Minnesota Governor’s office to share your thoughts on the case, or demand a full pardon. Plz cc to Brian4Justice@yahoo.com: https://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/form/
*E-mail ABC 20/20 (See Suggestions in “Call to Action Letter” penned by Brian Kinter, below) to share your thoughts on the hatchet job 20/20 did covering the Grazzini-Rucki story in “Footprints in the Snow”. You may also consider sending 20/20 articles, docs or links to radio shows about Sanda’s case. Plz cc to Brian4Justice@yahoo.com
– Reporter Elizabeth Vargas: elizabeth.a.vargas@abc.com
– Producer Sean Dooley: sean.dooley@abc.com
– Associate Producer Beth Mullen: beth.a.mullen@abc.com
*Contact officials involved in Grazzini-Rucki case to express your thoughts, or send articles and information, in support of Sandra. Plz cc to Brian4Justice@yahoo.com
(See Suggestions in “Call to Action Letter” penned by Brian Kinter, below)
For additional info on how to write a letter, some tips:
CALL TO ACTION, For Sandra Grazzini Rucki (Suggestions from Brian Kinter)
It would be nice to reach out to those listed below and let them know that we are deeply concerned as to how they reached their conclusions.
My Letter, of which is attached below is what I am faxing, emailing and reading when I call them out.
I pray you would do the same.
In addition we are asking one and all to cc us , Brian4Justice@yahoo.com so that we can track the number of complaints.
We will then file a Freedom Of Information request to the below listed parties, asking them to give us the number of complaints lodged and a copy of each.
We will do this for future legal action.
For it seems logical that if we can get, 5,000, 10,000, or more complaints, that someone would have to give an explanation on how they derived at the decisions in which they reached.
CONTACTS:
Elizabeth Vargas-20/20 host elizabeth.a.vargas@abc.com
Sean Dooley- producer 20/20 sean.dooley@abc.com
Beth Mullen- 20.20 producer beth.a.mullen@abc.com
Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota Courts – beau.berentson@courts.state.mn.us
James Backstrom, Dakota County Prosecutor – attorney@co.dakota.mn.us,
Monica Jenson, public affairs officer for the Dakota County Prosecutor – monica.jensen@co.dakota.mn.us
Marybeth Schubert, public affair officer for Dakota County – marybeth.schubert@co.dakota.mn.us
Attorney General for Minnesota – attorney.general@ag.state.mn.us
Dave Oney, public affairs officer for the US Marshals Minnesota Court of Appeals (651) 296-2581 – dave.oney@usdoj.gov
Sample Letter
Here is an example of the letter I am faxing and emailing. This is but a portion.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like an explanation as to how you can justify the vicious, vindictive actions you have taken against Sandra Grazzini Rucki??
From the very onset of the record anyone of sound mind can see that Judge Knutson’s mental capacity certainly needs to be called in to question. For it defies logic, that this professed legal scholar would award David Rucki the four homes and nine vehicles and leave Sandra homeless and with no vehicle.
How can there be two existing orders in place that contradict each other, one states Sandra can not leave the State, another says she can not remain in the State but has to adhere to all the State Courts Orders.
How can a Judge order 100% of her income to go to her ex-husband ??
How can you all sit idly by and watch this proliferation of abuse being delivered upon Sandra and not speak out against it???”
(Courtroom 2F, Dakota County Judicial Center, Minnesota) Judge David L. Knuston aka “Korrupt Knutson” presides over yet another controversial case – this time giving a drastic downward departure, meaning a sentence more lenient than recommended by guidelines, for an unlicensed daycare provider convicted of brutally assaulting, and nearly killing, a 13 month old boy.
Due to the severity of the injuries, the child was not expected to survive – today he is 2 years old and suffering from permanent brain damage.
Has justice been served? In two separate high-profile cases – the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki divorce/custody case and the criminal trial of child predator Dennis Roy – Judge Knutson showed leniency to a perpetrator of child abuse, and gave sympathy instead of prison.
A deeper look into all three of these cases suggests a pattern that Judge Knutson’s reckless disregard for the safety of children, and for public safety, has enabled dangerous abusers to avoid the punishment their heinous crimes warrant. Is the public safe with Judge Knutson on the bench?
#1 – The Merchant Case (2016/2017) : No Prison for Daycare Provider Who Nearly Killed a Toddler
Source: pinterest
Background: On September 22, 2016, parents Jessica and John Merchant say their child “WM” was in good health, and showed no sign of any problems, the day he was dropped off at the home of Mariel Alexandra Grimm. Grimm, a mother and unlicensed daycare provider, had been watching “WM” since he was 9 weeks old. Grimm says that after being dropped off at her home that day, “WM” was at a usual level of activity, and that he “he was playing on the floor with some toys and seemed fine…” The day started off like any other, then ended in tragedy.
Grimm was the only adult in the home the day “WM” suffered a near fatal brain injury. At the time, Grimm was caring for 5 five other children – four of her children who were being home-schooled, and another daycare child.
“WM” was dropped off at 7:15 am; Grimm said she cuddled with “WM” and then laid him down in a pack n’ play. Grimm then went upstairs, and left “WM” alone, in the basement, to nap. At 8:47 am, Grimm heard “WM” crying and went to change his diaper, and brought him upstairs where he ate some cereal. After breakfast, Grimm brought “WM” back to the pack n’ play, and left him alone in the basement again so she could home-school her 4 children in the upstairs level of the home. In her statement to police, Grimm did not recall how long “WM” slept.
When “WM” woke again, Grimm went to change his diaper and noticed “WM” was stiff and unconscious. Grimm tried to rouse “WM” but he would not respond. Grimm then called Jessica Merchant who instructed her to call 911. The 911 call was made at 12:51 pm, an ambulance arrived soon after. When medics arrived, they found Grimm holding “WM” – who had a pulse but was breathing very shallow and was unresponsive. Medics noted that one of “WM”’s pupils was extremely dilated, and the other was not, a sign of head trauma. At the hospital, “WM” was diagnosed with a massive subdural hematoma (a build up of blood between the layers of tissue that cover the brain, a sign of severe trauma) and required emergency surgery.
Physicians treating “WM” stated that he would have become unresponsive immediately after or shortly after the head trauma occurred. The physicians also testified that type of trauma “WM” suffered is beyond what a toddler would experience if they had a normal fall or bump to the head, and the severity of the injury is consistent with being violently shaken or thrown. Meaning the greater force applied to the head, the more severe the damage to the brain and functioning will be. A severely injured infant would not be able to regulate any behavior requiring higher cortical functions, such as eating, sitting, playing, laughing, or walking – which is how “WM” now presents.
“WM” was diagnosed as suffering from abusive head trauma. He required surgery to remove a part of his skull in order to alleviate the swelling around the brain and spent months in the hospital. Medical experts testified that the injury inflicted on “WM” is consistent with “a violent acceleration-deceleration event, such as a high-speed motor vehicle collision or being severely shaken or thrown..”
An online comment says this about the case: “..Her (Grimm) story has changed repeatedly — her timeline is both inconsistent and incoherent and isn’t supported by the physical evidence.
Her daughter testified that the boy woke up crying while Mariel was in the shower, her daughter got her mother out of the shower who was angry about it, then Mariel was heard yelling at the boy to shut up. He then went entirely silent.
The boy suffered permanent and severely debilitating brain damage. To the extent that he is expected to remain a toddler in his capabilities for the rest of his life (though he is hoped to exceed those expectations). The damage was described, by one of the premier pediatric neurosurgical and neurological teams in the entire United States, as one of the worst cases of TBI that they’ve ever seen…” Comment VO
Grimm noted in an online post that attorneys were “happy” that Judge Knutson was appointed to her case, and they had good reason to be considering the favorable outcome she would receive. Grimm was convicted in July 2017 by a jury of 1st degree felony assault; sentencing occurred in September 2017.
“WM”, an adorable little boy with eyes that smile, chubby cheeks and golden blond hair, suffered from permanent brain damage and will never fully recover from injuries. The rest of his childhood will include continued medical treatment, and uncertainty. The Merchants said during their victim impact statement that “WM” cannot walk, requires a feeding tube, and suffers from seizures and intractable pain.
Mother, Jessica Merchant, said,” It is impossible to convey the tragedy and depth of devastation and sorrow as we watched our son fight for his life for days and weeks…
His life has been forever altered. Instead of wondering where he’ll go to college, or if he’ll be an engineer like his daddy, or a teacher like his mama, or an astronaut or a writer or an athlete, we have to wonder if he’ll even be able to have a job … to participate in school … to live on his own.”
Many in the courtroom cried after listening to the heart-wrenching victim impact statement. The Merchants asked Grimm be given the harshest sentence possible.
Despite the severity of “W.M’s” injuries, Judge Knutson showed sympathy – not to the “W.M.” or to the Merchant family but to the woman convicted of shaking the child, Mariel Grimm. Knutson praised Grimm for “cooperating” with the prosecutor’s office and her attitude in court; to which Judge Knutson bizarrely notes,”She has expressed ongoing love and support for the victim..” An “expression of love” does NOT involve violently shaking or throwing a toddler, causing his brain to hemorrhage!
Judge Knutson said he was also touched by the letters of support for Grimm but ignored the victim impact statement of the child’s parents, and the reaction of the public to it.
Prosecutor Heather Pipenhagen said, “All of Ms. Grimm’s good qualities … do not mitigate what she did on September 22, 2016 to this child..Make no mistake, she took his life. He’s alive, but Ms. Grimm took his life.”
Grimm was facing up to 8 years in prison but in an act of misplaced mercy, Judge Knutson stayed the sentence so that Grimm will avoid prison. Instead, Grimm will spend up to 90 days in county jail but could be released in as little as 60 days. Grimm could also be released from jail to attend counseling appointments, and to home-school her 4 children. In addition, Grimm has been sentenced to 60 days of electronic home monitoring, 200 hours of community service and 15 years of probation. Grimm has an open case with CPS, her children were not removed from her home, but she has been required to be supervised when with them. As part of the conditions for probation Grimm is required to follow all directions of CPS. Grimm says she is innocent, that “WM” came to her home with injury, and plans to appeal.
A Fundraiser has been set up to help the Merchant family pay “W.M.’s” medical bills: Help with Medical Bills
#2 – Dennis Roy Case (May 2013) : Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist, Victim Imprisoned By Ongoing Trauma, Flashbacks
Dennis Michael Roy, pleaded guilty to felony first-degree criminal sexual conduct after raping and repeatedly assaulting a 5-year old girl, a relative, from Eagan (Case No. 19HA-CR-12-495).
Roy faced a maximum of 30 years in prison and $40,000 in fines…but instead he walked free. Roy appeared before Judge David L. Knutson, who handed down his sentence on March 22, 2013. Judge Knutson sentenced Roy to a 16-year stayed prison term and 20 years of probation.
In September 2014, Roy was found guilty of a probation violation for loitering in public with an open bottle of alcohol. He served 45 days in jail.Roy has 18 prior convictions, including second-degree burglary, multiple motor-vehicle thefts, multiple DUIs, trespassing, disorderly conduct and multiple domestic assaults.
The child involved continues to struggle with the assault, and suffers severely from the effects of trauma with flashbacks, anxiety and depression.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Divorce/Custody Case: Abuser Given Sole Custody of Children He Victimized, Lifetime Ban From Children Against Protective Mother
Judge Knutson is the family court judge who presided over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody trial after it was illegally re-opened. Judge Knutson also demanded that ALL legal matters concerning the Grazzini-Rucki family be placed under his jurisdiction alone, and no other. By “coincidence” all the judges appointed to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s other legal matters (appellate, child support, criminal) share a connection to Judge Knutson, and all have issued extremely harsh rulings against her – even violating the law to do so.
In September 2012, Judge Knutson court ordered the removal of mother and primary caregiver, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, from the home, causing all five children to run away after hearing the news. Judge Knutson instilled paternal aunt, Tammy Jo Love, a temporary guardian. Love had previously lost custody of her children due to drug use. The Rucki children feared Love, and say she mistreated them (one of the children told police after running away that Love hit her). Judge Knutson’s irrational decision came after allegations of sexual abuse involving two of the children were raised, which he was fully aware of. The Rucki children were apprehended and put into the care of a maternal aunt while Judge Knutson continued to work to give abuser, David Rucki, custody of the children who were so desperate to escape his abuse.
Instead of protecting the five Rucki children, Judge Knutson sought to isolate the children so they would have no avenue for help. Judge Knutson worked to give the abusive father complete control over the children – directly putting them in harm’s way. For the Rucki children, their childhood died the day their loving and protective mother was removed from their home, and their life, their existence would become a nightmare involving continued legal chaos and abuse; that would be impossible to escape, even as adults.
The traumatized Rucki children were then court ordered into reunification with identified abuser, father David Rucki. Some of the visits were facilitated in the Dakota County Judicial Center, where Judge Knutson used the court bailiffs to guard the doors so the children could not escape. Witnesses reported hearing the anguished cries of the children from behind closed doors during “reunification”. In another incident, the youngest child was heard screaming like a wounded animal, held captive by a therapist bent on “deprogramming”. The older siblings made efforts to help but were prevented and eventually separated from the younger siblings so they would be easier to control. Judge Knutson’s failure to protect the five Rucki children from the physical, mental and sexual abuse perpetrated by their father, David Rucki, has directly lead to these children being further abused, and now held captive by a custody ruling that has sentenced them to a life of torture.
Judge Knutson’s failure to consider the safety of the Rucki children created a crisis in which two of the eldest Rucki sisters ran away again on April 19, 2013, again citing fear for their safety when Judge Knutson attempted to place them again into the care of Tammy Jo Love.
While the eldest sisters were still missing, Judge Knutson ordered a custody trial, to be held on September 11-12, 2013 (note: the custody trial was held in the same courtroom as the Mariel Grimm criminal trial). During trial, Judge Knutson ordered Sandra’s attorney to proceed with while handcuffed and strapped to a wheelchair, without her client present, and no files, and not even her shoes or glasses. The custody trial was rife with due process violations, Constitutional violations, and legal error – in effect was a rigged trial masterminded by Judge Knutson. Under circumstances of great injustice, in November 2013, David Rucki was granted sole custody of all 5 children. At the time of the court order, Rucki was on probation for violating a protective order issued against him, after his continued abuse of Sandra. Judge Knutson later slapped a lifetime ban against loving and protective mother, Sandra – prohibiting her from any physical, verbal, or written contact with her children. Sandra has not seen or heard from her children in over 5 years, and grieves their loss every day, in every breath, she takes.
The two oldest Rucki sisters remained in hiding, living on a therapeutic horse ranch, and refusing to return to their father, David Rucki, stating he abused them. Witnesses say both girls exhibited emotional and physical symptoms consistent with abuse. On the ranch the sisters were well cared for, and nurtured, and began to not only heal but thrive in their new environment, which they considered home. Tragically in November 2015, after 2 years the sisters were discovered, and despite their pleas for help, and the recommendation of a social worker to keep them in foster care for their safety, Judge Michael Mayer (a close friend of Judge Knutson) returned the sisters back into the custody of David Rucki. To attest to his violent nature, Rucki was on probation for a violent road rage incident at the time the girls were put into his care.
Sandra was later convicted of 6 counts of felony deprivation for her efforts to assist her daughters, who ran away from abuse. She has filed an appeal, and has not stopped fighting for justice, and to keep her children safe from abuse.
The Grazzini-Rucki case is yet another example of Judge Knutson showing preference to a dangerous abuser, and purposefully ignoring the safety concerns and well-being of a vulnerable child. Yet again, the abuser is given protective status while the child is placed in harm’s way, with the assistance of Judge Knutson.
Against all logic, Judge Knutson has shown sympathy to dangerous child predators and abusers. Criminals go free when jail is warranted, and vulnerable children are denied the justice and protection they deserve.
Is Minnesota safe with Judge Knutson on the bench?
This special episode of the “Future of Our Children Radio” with host Randy Davis features three guests who have all stared the evils of legal corruption in the face, and lived to tell:
Brian Kinter is a father victimized by family court who courageously fought back and regained custody of his children.
Brian is now a civil rights advocate raising awareness of family court and legal corruption, and advocates for judicial reform with the Judicial Accountability Movement (J.A.M.).
Journalist Michael Volpe extensively investigated and reported on cases of corruption, including family court and guardianship abuse cases.
Volpe’s coverage of the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has gained national attention, and helped to shine a spotlight on the systemic failures in family court and the devastating effects on victims.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki isa loving mother who unjustly lost custody of five children and nearly her life after divorcing a wealthy, and well-connected abuser.
Ex-husband David Rucki is a dangerous abuser with a lengthy criminal history who was on probation for violating a protective order when given custody of the children. (For more info: druckipolicereports)
Sandra is now permanently banned from having any contact with her children after Rucki took out a lifetime restraining order against her on behalf of the children, which was illegally granted by Judge David Knutson and then reinforced by Judge Karen Asphaug.The order was granted despite the wishes of children, who have begged to live with their mother, and say they are happiest in Sandra’s care. There have never been any findings or allegations of abuse against Sandra, while there are multiple sources and reports of Rucki’s violent behavior. Rucki remains unpunished and has received preferential treatment from Judge Knutson and cronies in Dakota County.
The abuse, and threats to safety, was so severe that two of the eldest Rucki daughters ran away in April 2013 (for the second time). Sandra has been convicted of felony parental deprivation for her efforts to save the lives of her children.
As a result of over 6 years of continuous legal action against her, Sandra is now homeless, destitute and lives in fear that Rucki will make good on threats to see her dead and will do so with the blessing of Judge Knutson (Dakota County). She is battling corruption in every level of Minnesota’s judiciary and government.
This Epiode Includes:
A deeper look into the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case and how she has been “set up to die or commit suicide” by Dakota County, and its corrupt judges and officials. The Grazzini-Rucki family court, child support and criminal cases are discussed in detail.
Collusion between the district judges in Dakota County, and Appellate judges, that have conspired to obstruct justice in the Grazzini-Rucki case, and have continued to issue rulings that defy justice, and served only to make Sandra’s ability to survive impossible. Special focus on Judge David L Knutson aka “Korrupt Knutson”.
Discussion and updates on Dede Evavold and her blog “Red Herring Alert”. Evavold has been targeted for retaliation by both Rucki and Dakota County, who are now trying to shut her blog down in order to control media coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case.
How the family courts are endangering the safety and well-being of children, and failing to protect children when allegations of abuse are raised.
Discussion on ways, we as citizens, can raise awareness of problems in family court and impact needed change. Includes ideas on how to help Sandra with her case.
Brian Kinter was invited to host “Million Parent March Live” and invited Sandra Grazzini-Rucki as his guest.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is a former airline stewardess, model, and mother of 5, until she got a phone call from some lawyer, forcing her out of her home of 19 years, telling her “you have 3 hours to get out, or you’re going to jail.”
During Sandra’s child custody trial, her lawyer was handcuffed to a wheel chair and tortured for 24 hours by order of Judge David L. Knutson.
Knutson is famous for taking the law into his own hands, saying, ‘This room is my playground, I can do what I want’. Knutson an appointed judge, has a family who has dominated politics in Minnesota for years. Knutson person practiced law for literally 7 minutes before being appointed, and he becomes chair person for the “Board of Judicial Standards”!
Knutson handed down 3482+ court orders against Sandra, and took it upon himself to be her personal probation officer.
You are not going to want to miss this, it’s right out of the twilight zone…a real place, located at the Dakota County Judicial Center.
Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota
“..all this courtroom has done has cause misery and heartache…” except of a letter written by one of the Rucki children, April 2013
The public is invited to celebrate Constitution Day at the Dakota County “Open Courthouse” event on September 15… held at the epicenter of corruption in Minnesota: the Dakota County Judicial Center. The free, open-to-the public event, will run from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2017 Dakota County Open Courthouse Event
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tour, and experience firsthand, the infamous courthouse at the center of the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial, and criminal trial where unconstitutional abuses of power by the courts, judges, court officers and law enforcement occurred. Both cases also involve rampant violations of the constitutional rights of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, as well as the 3 co-defendants in the criminal trial.
The public is advised to enter the Dakota County Judicial Center at their own risk – law and justice mean nothing here!
Judge David L. Knutson will make a special appearance at the 12:30 Welcoming Ceremony, held at the Jury Assembly Room, Lower Level.
Wonder if Judge Knutson would be willing to answer questions such as:
**Why did you give custody of five children to a dangerous abuser?
**Why did you ignore the abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children?
**Do you think it is appropriate for a judge to ignore allegations of child sexual abuse?
**Do you think it is okay for a judge to call a child abuse victim a ‘liar’ when they disclose abuse?
**Why did you release David Rucki after several violations of a protective order?
**How is the public supposed to trust the courts when they see you break the law and go to such extreme lengths to give custody to a violent man and deprive a fit, loving mother of custody?
**How do you defend your violations of the Constitutional rights of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki?
**Why did you give such a light sentence to child rapist Dennis Roy?
**Do you support 1st Amendment rights? If so, why are you limiting the free speech of blogger Dede Evavold?
Chances are Judge Knutson, the coward he is, won’t be taking any questions from the public and will continue to hide behind the skirts of judicial immunity.
Judge David L Knutson
The court, judges, prosecutors, police and many layers of corruption within Dakota Count colluded to give sole custody to a dangerous abuser, David Rucki, and worked to cover up their crimes in doing so, to detriment of the five Rucki children. Mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, who, fought to keep the children safe from harm is now being punished and criminalized while the real criminals go free.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was a loving, stay-at-home mother of five children, and former Mrs. Lakeville, who has been victimized, deprived of her rights and due process, and forcibly separated from her children due to injustice and corruption in the family court and criminal court of Dakota County. Sandra’s situation is so dire that she is now living in hiding – and her children have been given into the custody of a dangerous abuser with a long history of criminal acts and violence against his own family. druckipolicereports
Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD
Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich
Paul Reitman
The Rucki children have raised abuse allegations against their father only to be told by Judge David Knutson, Guardian ad Litems, Julie Friedrich and Laura Miles, and court-ordered therapists, Dr. Paul Reitman and Dr James Gilbertson, that they are liars and in need of de-programming. And this has occurred – the Rucki children were forced into “de-programming” using methods similar to what is done to a POW camp in order to get the children to recant abuse allegations, and then forced into complying with the courts demands even as it has proved detrimental to their safety and well-being.
If you heard a child come forward with an allegation of abuse like this, would you honestly walk away and do nothing?? That is exactly what Judge Knutson, and others, have done to the Rucki children.
In April 2013, one of the Rucki children wrote a letter to describe how she witnessed her father, David Rucki, abuse her mother, and stated that he was also violent and threatening to other children – to the extreme that her even friends feared visiting the Rucki home.
The letter (which was not allowed to be submitted as evidence in Sandra’s criminal trial) included this statement from her daughter,”I know the difference between a lie and the truth….
I stand here today to tell you the truth about my father. To begin with, he has not only told my family that he is homicidal, but sat us down at kitchen table and yelled at us saying that he was not only going to kill me but my brothers, sister and mom. Not even a week later I received a horrifying voicemail of 6 gunshots. He has also choked, slapped, and hit and verbally abused my mother repeatedly throughout their. marriage. He also has lost it on us kids more than a number of time physically and verbally. Also he has made sexual comments to me over the year about my boobs look bigger and so forth and over the year many of my friends could not hang out with me because of my father. The day my father officially moved out of the Ireland place home was not only a day of peace and happiness but safety in the household…” Letters from Rucki Sisters April 2013
Sandra has continued to be the punching bag for her abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, even after she fled the marriage by agreeing to divorce in 2011. – Rucki conspired with “Korrupt Knutson” to batter, and destroy, Sandra by using the legal system in the same way that he once used his fist to beat her into submission.
As a result of family court proceedings, Sandra was court ordered by Judge Knutson into a “lifetime of servitude,” stripped of her children and custodial rights, her home, her employment, and her freedom— she is now homeless and destitute, hunted and harassed by ex-husband, David Rucki, who has promised to “see her dead.”
The public is invited take self-guided tours of the Dakota County Judicial Center, with stops including courtrooms and other areas of interest, and the chance to hear from a local district court judge or other justice system officials.
Jury Assembly Room/Jury room – This room is the notorious site where jury tampering occurred in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal case (July 2016). Jury tampering is a factor that contributed to Sandra being found guilty, by tainting the jury with prejudicial information before the trial began.
During jury selection, nearly all of the 60 members of the jury pool admitted they had heard or read about the Grazzini-Rucki case; meaning the jury had been influenced even before the trial began. In criminal cases that receive a lot of publicity it is common to hold the trial in another jurisdiction – that didn’t happen here because Dakota County waged a vendetta against Sandra, and probably won’t give up punishing her until she is dead.
In another instance of jury tampering, an article from the Star Tribune regarding the Grazzini-Rucki case was found in the jury room. It should be noted that the article was written by a blogger who has a close relationship with David Rucki, and has expressed admiration of Judge David Knutson. The blogger was contracted at the Star Tribune to cover the Grazzini-Rucki case as part of an “experiment” that went massively awry when the paper was used to promote propaganda and false and misleading information about the Grazzini-Rucki case; articles specifically do not mention or include documentation of abuse or Rucki’s lengthy history of violence. So what the jurors saw was a news article written as a hit piece against Sandra, who was vilified, and unable to defend herself against the impressions formed in the jurors minds outside the courtroom.
In another instance of jury tampering, one juror admitted to being at a party with Rucki’s relative, and Judge Asphaug refused to have this person disqualified after they promised to remain neutral.
If that were not bad enough, two bloggers covering the trial approached the jurors and asked them to speak about the case. Due to the severity of the allegations, Judge Karen Asphaug stopped the trial in the middle of proceedings, left the bench and went into the jury room to assess the damage. Inappropriate contact with a juror is grounds for a mistrial; despite this, Judge Asphaug continued with trial, once again making excuses for a jury that could not possibly remain neutral after being pressured and influenced before trial began.
Book and Release – Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was held in Book and Release several times during the course of her criminal trial. If walls could talk, the walls of the book and release room would drip with anguished tears.
Sandra found herself in the Book and Release room not as a criminal but as mother who fought to protect her children from abuse, risking her own life and freedom to do so.
In her former life, Sandra was a stay at home mom who lavished her time, energy and love on her five children. She worked as a flight attendant and had a spotless 30+ year history of impeccable service, and was loved by crew and guests alike. After surviving an abusive marriage that nearly cost her life, Sandra looked forward a fresh start…hope for the future was short-lived because ex-husband, David Rucki, would escalate his attacks against her in a new arena: family court, where he is assisted by a powerful and korrupt judge, David L. Knutson.
The result of 6 years of continued legal abuse, and humiliation in family court, is that Sandra is destitute and homeless. She has survived stalking and death threats from Rucki (and people on his behalf) but the nature of the court orders have left her barely surviving. By order of Judge Knutson, her home, all her belongings, and even pictures of her children have been taken. David Rucki has been awarded 100% of the marital property including 4 homes and all the contents within, 9 classic cards and has dumped huge amounts of personal debt onto Sandra. Rucki is also granted nearly $1,000 a month in child support, and motioning the court for Sandra to pay thousands of dollars for legal fees, even though Sandra has not worked for almost two years and is unable to meet her own basic needs. With 6 felonies on her record, it is doubtful that Sandra will be able to return to work as a flight attendant – or be hired anywhere else. The State of Minnesota once extended assistance to Sandra but since has terminated benefits. Now she has no means to pay for food or basic necessities that most take for granted. Rucki lives like a king, devising new ways to torment poor Sandra.
Sandra was forced to witness continued abuse inflicted on her children then was jailed for trying to protect them when they were forced to go on the run to protect their own lives. She was confined in the Book and Release Room, hands in cuffs, while the real criminals – David Rucki and Judge Knutson – go free.
Courtroom 1F: Mock Jury Selection Demonstrations – Courtroom 1F is where Judge David L. Knutson presided over the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial (September 11-12, 2013).
It is here that Sandra lost custody of her five, precious children and would forever be banned from having any contact with them. Dangerous abuser David Rucki is awarded sole custody, despite for being on probation for violating a protective order against Sandra. At the time of the custody order, two of the Rucki children are missing – they ran away in fear for their lives due to their father’s abuse and Judge Knutson’s failure to protect them.
Courtroom 1F is also where lawyer Michelle MacDonald was forced to represent Sandra Grazzini-Rucki while handcuffed and strapped to a wheelchair and without her files and notes, pen/paper, glasses, shoes, and even without her client – and without ever being charged or booked. (Sandra, and several court witnesses, left the courtroom that day after Judge Knutson told them that trial was over and that MacDonald was being arrested.) Judge Knutson took these outrageous actions as retaliation against MacDonald because she had filed a federal lawsuit against him, on behalf of Sandra, and asked that he recuse himself from the trial. Lawsuit: Female Attorney Strapped to Wheelchair in Court
Judge Knutson continues to retaliate against Michelle MacDonald and has actually filed a complaint against her law license, stating she failed to properly represent Sandra in the custody trial – after he alone made it impossible for Sandra to obtain a fair trial.
Judge Knutson avoids any responsibility for his unethical, and illegal actions, by hiding behind judicial immunity like a coward. Judge Knutson now sits on the Board on Judicial Standards, which oversees complaints against judges. JudgeKnutson’s role on the Board has greatly contributed to the public trust in the judiciary eroding to an all time law… the people of Minnesota do not respect judges anymore – they fear them.
While the Dakota County Judicial Center celebrates Constitution Day, the public is unaware that they are celebrating at the very alter, the judge’s bench in courtroom 1F, where the gavel has slammed against the Constitution, shattering it rendering it void.. as if our very Constitution were made of glass, and could be easily discarded.
Judge Karen J Asphaug
Courtroom 1D – Scene of “Rigged Trial” – It is here the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial was conducted under the jurisdiction of Judge Karen Asphaug (July 25-28, 2016).
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is found guilty on 6 counts of deprivation of parental rights after Judge Karen Asphaug disallowed the majority of evidence supporting the affirmative defense she raised.
Sandra raisde the affirmative defense in her criminal trial, meaning she admitted to assisting her daughters because feared for their safety. If the jury found enough evidence to support the affirmative defense, Sandra could be exonerated. Sandra’s defense depended on proving why she feared for the safety of her daughters. Judge Asphaug suppressed 75% of defense evidence during the criminal trial including: witness testimony, Rucki’s criminal history, CPS and social service records documenting the abuse of the Rucki children, evidence of stalking, protective orders Sandra took out against Rucki, and more..
Sandra is actively appealing the decision.
Holding Cell – The Adult Holding Cell is where attorney Michelle MacDonald was detained, and she says “tortured” by order of Judge Knutson, during the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial (September 11-12, 2017). Judge Knutson ordered that MacDonald be detained because she took pictures in the courtroom when it was not in session. The popular story is that MacDonald got in trouble for taking pictures of Deputy Timothy Gonder. Just do a social media search and you will see that pictures are routinely taken in the Dakota County Judicial Center, and no one else is punished in the way MacDonald was. The truth is that the pictures were taken of the court docket to document irregularities in the scheduling of the case. MacDonald was documenting, in pictures, the illegal actions of Judge Knutson and, to him, had to be stopped.
After the trial (which was not a trial in any sense of the word!), attorney Michelle MacDonald was not allowed to leave court but, instead, was unlawfully detained for through the night and into the next day. MacDonald was held for more than 24 hours without being booked, charged, or allowed bail, bond, or to make a phone call. She was never read her Miranda rights.
Interesting enough, Judge Michael Mayer, who presided over the juvenile trial of the runaway Rucki girls, made a personal appearance to the detention center to witness MacDonald’s humiliation, and tears. With a snide laugh he taunted her by saying, “Having a rough day?”
Also present was Deputy Timothy Gonder, the personal thug of Judge Knutson. Deputy Gonder manhandled Michelle MacDonald and meted out punishment by unofficial judicial order. Gonder would also make an appearance when Sandra was injured while being held in the Ramsey County Correctional Facility during criminal proceedings, and would be the subject of a PREA complaint after he took inappropriate pictures while she was handcuffed to a bed, and made special efforts to humiliate her.
MacDonald later filed a lawsuit, claimingthe sheriff’s office engaged in seven of the internationally recognized forms of torture: sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, solitary confinement/isolation, temperature extremes, sensory bombardment and psychological techniques.
The lawsuit describes the cruelty inflicted on MacDonald – deputies turned the temperature of the room down to freezing and kept the bright lights on all night to keep her awake. MacDonald took the toilet paper and wrapped it around her head and body and feet to keep in an vain effort to keep warm. The guard came in and ripped it off her, saying she was not using it properly. Pictures were taken of MacDonald in her cell in an effort to humiliate her. Guards made comments about prisoner suicide as a way to intimidate her. All of this MacDonald suffered because she bravely defended Sandra, and her Constitutional rights, in Judge Knutson’s lawless court, room 1F.
Michelle MacDonald was eventually released, no charges were ever brought against her related to this incident. Judge Leslie Metzen ultimately determined that Michelle MacDonald’s civil rights had been violated by the illegal search and seizure of the camera.
Courtroom 1B: Interactive Television (ITV) Demonstration and Judge Chamber 109 –
The Judge’s Chamber should be called the Torture Chamber for what was done to the Rucki children in the Dakota County Judicial Center.
In February 2013, the Rucki children were summoned to the chambers of Judge David Knutson. The Rucki children not only disclosed abuse to Judge Knutson but clearly stated their preference to live with mother, Sandra, where they felt safe and loved. Enraged, Judge Knutson ordered that the proceedings be sealed.
That same day, David Rucki had a pending case in criminal court for violating a no-contact order that prohibited him from contacting the children. Judge Knutson made special efforts to have all criminal charges against Rucki dismissed, which did happen.
Even after hearing serious allegations of abuse from the Rucki children, and with knowledge that Rucki violated a no-contact order, Judge Knutson ordered that very same day the children be forced to a visit their father. Dr. James Gilbertson, therapist, recommended the children be held in a room and an armed bailiff be used as a show of force in order to get the children to comply. Court records reveal the older children – specifically S.R. and G.R. were viewed as a problem. The “problem” being that they raised abuse allegations and were vocal in objecting to forced visits with Rucki (i.e they didn’t go along with “the programming”).
Another tactic used on the Rucki children, at the recommendation of Dr. Gilbertson, is that the older children were separated from the younger children. This was done so the younger children would have no protection and no advocate, and could be psychologically broken down more easily, and thus, easier to control.
At other times, court records reveal, the Rucki children were brought to the courthouse by order of Judge Knutson, where they were held for hours, in a room without food or drink, without toys, and without comfort of any kind. An armed bailiff was posted at the door to prevent escape. The records reveal the children were extremely anxious and upset to be brought to the court, which would be understandable considering what the children had to endure.
On one occasion, Dr. Gilbertson recommended the children be forced to sit in during proceedings and watch what happened as David Rucki raised false, and outrageous allegations against Sandra, who was then punished by Judge Knutson – who always ruled in Rucki’s favor. The children were sent a clear message that their mother, and protector, could no longer protect them.. that their father held all the power.
Other times, the Rucki children were detained in the courthouse and then forced, against their wishes, to visit with their father, Rucki. There are allegations that Rucki would intimidate the children during visits, give them the middle finger, that he was angry and made veiled threats. Even Dr. Gilbertson records in his notes that the children were visibly afraid of Rucki. Yet “reunification therapy” continued… it is no wonder that the children attempted to run away after their cries for help were ignored, and they were subject to further abuse.
In-Custody Courtroom – Money is the root of all evil.. the In-Custody Courtroom is where Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was brought for a bail hearing on November 6, 2015 and a $1 million dollar bail was issued for a defendant with no prior criminal history, and for a non-violent crime.. Sandra’s bail was much, much higher than most serious offenders.
Is at coincidence judge assigned to do bails that was none other than Judge Knutson?!? However, since Judge Knutson was busy with other tasks that day, the stand-in judge stepped in on his behalf and blindly ordered the astronomical amount of bail without a second thought.
The situation is even more unusual because Sandra was removed from the in-custody courtroom and taken, through a back hall, into a room hidden from public view, where bail was issued.
On February 24th, Sandra was released on her own recognizance. Outside of these trumped up charges, she remains law abiding and poses no threat to anyone.. other than the corruption in Dakota County that does not want to be exposed.
In yet another bizarre development of the Grazzini-Rucki case, David Rucki claims that blogging is a threat to his safety, and that of his minor children and filed for a restraining order against Dede Evavold, co-defendant in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial. It should be noted that Rucki’s petition for a harassment order (HRO) did not actually name or specify what blog had allegedly harassed or threatened him. The HRO did not provide any evidence that Evavold was responsible for owning any blog or that she had posted anything about Rucki on social media that constitutes the legal definition of harassment (per 609.748 Harassment Restraining Order).
Without proving actual harassment occurred, and in violation of Evavold’s freedom of speech, Judge Karen Asphaug granted a HRO against her that is effective for 2 years. Ex Parte HRO
Judge Karen Asphaug (Twitter)
There are numerous problems with the HRO granted … including Judge Asphaug’s prior role on a criminal case involving David Rucki, where she was instrumental in dismissing charges that involved physical threats and harassment that he committed against the neighbors.
Another connection is that Judge Asphaug’s husband, David Warg, shares a close professional and social relationship with Judge Tim Wermager, the first judge to preside over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce. A local newspaper article covering the swearing in of Judge Wermager alludes to political alliance, and deals made on the golf course that influence the court system, and judiciary, in Dakota County.Are these forces also at play in the Grazzini-Rucki case?
Judge Asphaug Dismissed Prior Criminal Charge Against David Rucki Despite Overwhelming Evidence of Threats, Harassment
That Judge Karen Asphaug quickly issued a HRO against Dede Evavold with absolutely no evidence to support any of the claims made is a sharp contrast to the role she played in dismissing a serious charge of disorderly conduct against Rucki, that involved harassment and threats. Many of Rucki’s acts were targeted against children.The police report filed from this incident includes remarks from Rucki that suggest he knew that if criminal charges were filed, the court would rule in his favor.
Officer Michelle Roberts writes in her report,”…Suspect (Rucki) told me that he didn’t have to listen to me. I advised him that if he would not allow me to question him regarding the specifics, I would have no choice but to charge him with disorderly conduct based on their allegations.
He stated,’Go ahead, it’s their word against mine and you can’t prove anything.’
I told him I would mail him a citation for disorderly conduct and he would have the opportunity to give his side in court. He responded,’I’m not going to show up for court, this is bullshit.’ He then said,’You guys can get the fuck off my property.’ Suspect approached us two additional times, each time arguing that we couldn’t take their word over his.“
In a supplemental report written by Officer Barb Maxwell, she took a complaint from the neighbor regarding Rucki’s frightening behavior towards his family. Officer Maxwell notes that when she attempted to speak to Rucki, he “..tried to intimidate me. I introduced myself and stated,’I am here because of a complaint on your dogs.’ Rucki got very close to me and said,’There is NO complaint on my dogs‘, and from that point on I was unable to say another word.” Rucki Incident Report 9/8/2009
Public Domain Image
Judge Karen Asphaug presided over the criminal trial against Rucki and dismissed all charges under unusual circumstances. Journalist Michael Volpe has extensively investigated the Grazzini-Rucki case and writes about these charges against Rucki, and the resulting hearing: “The case came in front of Judge Karen Asphaug and on December 31, 2009 a preliminary hearing was held.
As a result of the hearing, a trial was scheduled for February 8, 2010. But, 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.
That Judge Asphaug presided over this prior disorderly conduct case against Rucki should have disqualified her from later presiding over the criminal case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold and the other 2 co-defendants. That Judge Asphaug had knowledge of an incident involving a criminal charge against Rucki, where he was accused of violent behavior, creates a conflict of interest.
Further, this incident with the neighbor should have been allowed as evidence at Sandra’s criminal trial but Judge Asphaug would not allow it in. The neighbor had also written letter to describe his experiences with Rucki,”In our near decade of living next to him I have found him to be a very angry individual rages at anyone who has contention or confronts him. It got so severe against our family that the court awarded us a restraining order in September 2009….
As police reports can verify, he has boldly cursed profanely at, and tried to intimidate Lakeville’s female animal control officer. It is logical to conclude he is capable of more towards those more vulnerable, such as his wife and children.“
Dakota County Judicial Center
Judge Asphaug’s Husband Connected to First Judge Who Presided Over Grazzini-Rucki Divorce
Judge Karen Asphaug is also married to attorney David Warg, who was once a partner in a law firm with Judge Tim Wermager. Judge Wermager was the first judge to preside over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce.
A news article on the swearing in of Tim Wermager suggests that a good ‘ole boys club exists in Dakota County. The article hints that Wermager became a judge because of his political connections. (2008) Wermager sworn in as judge
Notable excerpts from the article include:
(Judge William) Thuet, also a Hastings resident, is a former attorney from the same law firm that Wermager practiced with for many years. In his remarks, he mentioned the connection.
“What do Rex Stacy, Tom Bibus, me, and now Tim Wermager, have in common?” he asked. “We all were in law practice with Jim O’Connell. He’s the judge maker.”
…Thuet was sworn in as judge in 1983 and remembers being told to “do what is right.” He urged Wermager to do the same.
In his remarks, Wermager thanked everyone, including his law partners O’Connell and David Warg, his family, and friends.
“One of the reasons I wanted to have this ceremony here is because of the history here,” Wermager said. “This is where we all started. (Community Room, Hastings City Hall
Wermager said Dakota County is held in high regard for its judicial practices.
“Attorneys like to practice here,” he said. “They are treated fairly and with respect.”
That pattern was begun by Judges Breunig (Robert), Mansur (Martin), and Hoey (George), Wermager noted. It continues today.
In this environment of cronyism and backroom deals how could Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or an of the co-defendants in the criminal trial, including Dede Evavold, ever receive a fair trial? When justice is offered for sale, it ceases to exist as justice and instead sows the seeds of corruption, greed and abuse of power at every level of the system.
HRO: Who is Harassing Who?
Rucki’s filing of a HRO against Dede Evavold seems well timed to silence Evavold from speaking out about her case, and to make an example of her to intimidate anyone else who is posting on social media, or other news outlets, about the Grazzini-Rucki case. There is only one narrative on this case that Rucki endorses – his own.
Second, Evavold has recently filed an appeal on her conviction of felony parental deprivation charges. Evavold Response Brief: Deceptive Dakota CountyIf Evavold’s case is overturned on appeal, she could still be subject to this HRO, which would become another way for Judge Asphaug to throw her in jail for any social media posting…As this HRO has established there doesn’t need to be evidence that Evavold did anything wrong to punish her. The basis of the HRO is quote “blog” posting with no blog named, no threatening statements listed, no acts of harassment cited,no proof Evavold posted anything that constitutes harassment or threats as defined by law. Judge Asphaug has created a situation where she can blame Evavold for any “blog” and charge her with an HRO violation; this is a clear abuse of judicial discretion.
Stay tuned as the Justice Blog continues to expose this harassment order, and other developments in the #grazzinirucki case!
Commentary from http://www.familylawcourts.com on injustice in the Grazzini-Rucki v. Rucki custody trial and the use of bailiffs as the “personal thugs” of Judge Knutson (pictures added by blog)
Isn’t the courthouse the last place one would expect laws are broken?
Dakota County Judicial Center
Turns out, not so much….
09-18-13: What’s up with Minnesota?
Why are Hastings deputy bailiffs acting as if they are Judge David L. Knutson‘s personal thugs?
Worse; do bailiffs not realize their job description for safety includes everyone at the courthouse?
Do bailiffs not realize part of their job is to exercise independent judgment?
If Judge Knutson is this much of a whack job, (and it would seem he is) doesn’t the public deserve at the very least: Bailiffs with brains?
Read attorney Michelle L. MacDonald’s Affidavit (Page 6, Numbers Eight, nine…(oh heck, read the whole thing), here.
This is America? Have there been other complaints filled against this judge?
We initially hoped Judge Knutson wasn’t the Standard for what passes for justice in Minnesota, but turns out, he is.
Yep, Judge David L Knutson is the standard for Minnesota, because he is a sitting board member of the (we are not making this up) Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards.
So the joke is on Lady Justice, and the people of Minnesota.
“Furthermore, the court accepts Ms. MacDonald’s representation that Petitioner (SGR) is homeless. A person who is homeless, by definition has no residence.” ~ Judge John R. McBride, dismissing OFP petition Grazzini-Rucki v. Brodkorb, 9/22/2016
Dakota County, MN: Judge Karen Asphaug issued a nationwide arrest warrant for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, citing a probation violation for not disclosing her address to the court. Sandra is currently homeless, and not a resident of the state of Minnesota. The arrest warrant comes even though Sandra is already being held in jail, and no bail hearing has ever been conducted. Judge Asphaug insists that Sandra must complete her sentence with 6 years of probation and conditions, forcing her to live in Minnesota for the duration of probation. Judge Asphaug refuses to allow Sandra to finish her sentence in prison. Judge Asphaug is wasting valuable time and resources of the courts, correctional department and costing the tax payers of Dakota County when this case could be quickly, and efficiently resolved by having Sandra complete her sentence in prison.
Source: Dakota County Jail Inmate Search November 2016
On Monday, November 21, 2016, at 9 am, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki will face Judge Karen Asphaug for a hearing concerning the alleged probation violation. According to records, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was taken into custody on November 3, 2016, and is currently in custody at the Ramsey County Workhouse. The violation concerns Sandra’s alleged “refusal” to provide the courts with an address to where she lives. Why has an arrest warrant been issued against someone who is already being held in jail? Sandra has not even had a bail hearing. Usually the court places a hold on a prisoner NOT issue a nationwide warrant. Homeless Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has made so many appearances in the Dakota County Judicial Center, that indeed, it could be listed as her address.
For Judge Asphaug to demand that Sandra disclose an address is ridiculous – Sandra is considered long-term homeless, meaning she does not have a permanent address. Sandra also is not a resident of the state of Minnesota. Sandra was arrested by US Marshals on October 18, 2015 in Florida for felony deprivation of parental rights and subsequently brought to Minnesota, and booked into jail on November 5th. Since November 5, 2015, Sandra has been homeless – she has been held in jail for much of that time, and alternately, reported to be “couch hopping”.
Sandra is considered “long term homeless” meaning she has been lacking a permanent place to live for a year or more, or has been homeless at least 4 times in the past 3 years (both requirements for long-term homeless apply to Sandra). Many homeless individuals resort to “Couch hopping”; which is a term for temporary shelter (i.e. sleeping on the couch). Couch Hopping does not offer permanent shelter, so even if an individual is temporarily staying in one location, it is not considered a permanent address. In Sandra’s situation, she has only been able to obtain temporary shelter, she is homeless and without an address.
Factors to becoming long-term homeless include: being previously homeless for long periods of time, faced with a situation or set of circumstances likely to cause the individual to become homeless in the near future, discharged from a correctional facility, lack of sufficient resources and unable to pay for a place to live. ALL of these factors apply to Sandra. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency: Long-Term Homeless Definitions
Further, Findings of Fact (#6) and testimony from the September HRO hearing validate that indeed Sandra is homeless, and without a permanent address, “Petitioner’s lawyer, Ms. MacDonald, informed the Court that her client is “homeless.” (Ms. MacDonald used the word homeless.) Ms. MacDonald further indicated that her client had been homeless since the year 2012. Ms. MacDonald stated that she had permitted Petitioner to stay in her office, and that her client was staying there at the time of filing the instant petition. Ms. MacDonald did not indicate how long her client had been staying in her office.“ Defendant Michael Brodkorb also argued the HRO be dismissed on grounds of “improper venue” meaning Sandra had not proven her address to be permanently residing in Washington County. Judge McBride later accepted that Sandra is homeless, and has no permanent residence; his ruling to dismiss the HRO is based on Sandra’s inability to prove residency in Washington County.
Judge McBride determined in his ruling that, “3. Minn. Stat. § 609.748 does not supply a definition of the term residence. Elsewhere in the law, however, residence is defined as “the place where a party has established a permanent home from which the party has no present intention of moving.” Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 9. It is doubtful that Petitioner ever established a “permanent home” in her lawyer’s office. 4. Furthermore, the Court accepts Ms. MacDonald’s representation that Petitioner is homeless. A person who is homeless, by definition, has no residence. It follows that Petitioner does not have a residence in Washington County.“
Second, Judge Asphaug is basically demanding that a resident (who?!?!) in Minnesota offer to give Sandra shelter, at their own financial expense, and endure the invasions of legal involvement on their own personal lives just so Sandra can comply with probation…for the next 7 years.
Those who have offered temporary shelter or shown support of Sandra have faced retaliation from David Rucki and his sister, Tammy Love, and/or been subjected to intrusive, and unwanted, legal and police action. Some examples – police seeking information about Sandra sought a warrant to search the home of a friend, the home was ransacked and personal property unrelated to the case, and not subject of the warrant, went missing (never to be recovered).
In another incident, The Carver County Corruption blog and The Red Herring Alert blog both published news and information about the Grazzini-Rucki case and were later threatened with legal action, and possible criminal charges, from David Rucki who was represented by a high-buck attorney, Marshall H. Tanick. The administrator of the Carver County blog was so terrified that she shut down her blog completely, and one administrator from Red Herring Alert has also removed herself from the blog, and attempted to erase the articles she had written out of fear.
In another incident, Sandra temporarily stayed at a residential apartment held belonging to her family law attorney, Michelle MacDonald (the apartment is used for business purposes including hosting clients). The address of the apartment was blasted all over news media and the internet, interfering in the privacy of not only MacDonald but the neighbors as well. Michael Brodkorb hired a private investigator to do surveillance, and take photos and video of the apartment. Brodkorb continues to make active efforts to discover where Sandra is staying, and with whom. It is no wonder that Sandra can not find a temporary place to live in Minnesota… which would involve not just a few days but a full 7 years of her probation! Anyone who offered Sandra shelter would be subjected to terms of probation that would include having their home randomly searched. Not to mention the threat of legal action by David Rucki. Who would sign up for that?What Judge Asphaug is asking is outrageous – there is a simple, and efficient solution and that is to have Sandra serve the remainder of her sentence in prison.
It is wrong for Judge Asphaug to seek criminal charges against Sandra for an alleged “probation violation” for a crisis that Judge Asphaug alone is responsible for. Sandra has complied with the terms of probation, she does not pose a risk to the public. The challenges Sandra is facing directly relate to her being homeless, and also relate to the ongoing retaliation and legal abuse perpetrated on her by David Rucki and by extension his attorney, Lisa Elliot, and corrupt agents the Dakota County court and legal system.
Items of Concern:
Judge Asphaug’s mishandling of the criminal case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki do not serve the best interest of justice.
Sandra has requested to execute her sentence, and shown a willingness to complete her sentence in prison. Judge Asphaug has refused to allow Sandra to execute, and has recently requested that Sandra be placed on a GPS/Ankle Bracelet. Judge Asphaug is going against the recommendation of the probation officer, who has requested to the court that Sandra’s probation be revoked, and that she be sent back to jail.
Sandra does not have the ability to pay for the costs associated with the GPS/Ankle Bracelet. She is currently not working, and her only source of income is a minimal amount public assistance. She is struggling to survive and not able to meet the basic costs of living let alone to afford massive court fines, and exorbitant child support payments (that is based on imputed income and not actual evidence).
Sandra was afforded a public defender. Judge Asphaug has revoked the public defender. Meaning Sandra is now going to court without legal representation, and lacking the proper knowledge needed to defend herself.
Sandra’s situation meets the criteria for long-term homeless; she should not be punished because she does not have a permanent address. Additionally, Sandra had been living out of state when she was brought to Minnesota to face criminal charges – she has not resided in Minnesota for several years. The nature of how and why Sandra was brought to Minnesota, demonstrates that she would not have a permanent address here.
When an individual is considered long-term homeless, they may seek temporary shelter known as “couch hopping”. Temporary shelter does not count as permanent or stable housing. That Sandra does not reveal an address is not a probation violation, it is an expression of her being homeless – she does not know where she will be staying, or how long she will be allowed to stay there.
Sandra does not pose a danger to herself, to the community, or to anyone else. She has complied with her probation, and conditions of release. The challenges Sandra is facing is directly related to the experience of being homeless. Due to the conditions of her probation she is unable to work in her profession as a flight attendant because she cannot leave the state. Sandra lacks the resources to maintain housing.For Judge Asphaug to refuse to allow Sandra to complete the rest of her sentence in prison is cruel and unusual punishment because Judge Asphaug is condemning Sandra to stay in Minnesota for 7 years in a situation where she would be homeless, unable to support herself, and at risk of emotional and physical harm while she is struggling to survive.
Minnesota Law allows for revocation of probation, which is what should be done in Sandra’s case. Judge Asphaug is wasting the valuable time and resources of the courts, law enforcement and the correctional facility pursuing this reckless course of action against Sandra. In addition, tax payer dollars are being wasted. – It is unjust for the Grazzini-Rucki case to cost the citizens of Dakota County, and the state, so much when this case can be quickly resolved by revoking probation, and allowing Sandra to complete the rest of her sentence in prison.
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.
My contested probation revocation hearing is scheduled tomorrow (Nov. 2nd) in Hastings. This is just continued misconduct of public employees by intentionally and unlawfully attempting to harm me under the color of official authority. Even if I wasn’t falsely convicted, this would not be lawful or justified! 
Justice for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Children 
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.