Appellate Briefs Reveal More Shocking Behavior in Rucki Case

** BREAKING NEWS ** From Michael Volpe and PPJ Gazette reporting on the appellate cases of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Dede Evavold

Briefs Reveal More Shocking Behavior in Rucki Case.

“In separate response briefs to pro se attorneys, the Dakota County Prosecutor’s Office has acknowledged jury tampering, misdirected an allegation of witness tampering, and refused to respond to address all allegations of judicial misconduct in the Rucki case.

The briefs from Dakota County Prosecutor James Backstrom were in response to briefs filed by Dede Evavold and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, both representing themselves.

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom

 

Evavold has been representing herself after the state ruled her too well off to receive an attorney while Grazzini-Rucki was represented but was so disgusted by her attorney’s brief that she filed one on her own.

Her attorney, Steven Russett, who was provided by the Minnesota Appellate Public Defender’s Office, did not respond to an email and voicemail for comment.

In the most startling admission, the prosecutors acknowledge- responding to Grazzini-Rucki- that a reporter approached the jury while they were in a common area during a lunch break and asked if any wanted to be interviewed when the trial ended.

The reporter’s name is Laura Adelmann, who works for the Sun Current, the hometown newspaper of Lakeville, Minnesota, where the Rucki’s live. “There was one occasion during trial in which it was it was reported to Judge Asphaug that a reporter (I.E. Laura Adelmann) had approached the jurors while they were eating in the common area of the courthouse and asked if she could interview them after the trial was over.” Backstrom’s brief stated.

 This incident occurred on Friday July 18, 2016, while the trial was ongoing, and on Monday July 21, 2016, Judge Asphaug issued this statement to the court gallery.

I also received information that a member of the press approached our jurors last week and asked if jurors would be willing to speak after the trial. It is- I am ordering that you may not approach the jurors in the common area of the courthouse. It is- it has a chilling effect. It concerns jurors don’t do it.” An email to Adelmann was left unreturned. A voicemail to her editor, Tad Johnson, was also left unreturned.

Judge Karen Asphaug

Though the trial was covered internationally there was not one story which referred to Asphaug’s statement while the trial was ongoing.

Emails to Karen Zamora and Brandon Stahl, who each covered parts of the trial for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, were left unreturned.

An email to Michael Brodkorb, who has boasted that he covered each day of the trial, was also left unreturned.

Emails to 20/20 host, Elizabeth Vargas, and her two producers, Beth Mullin and Sean Dooley, were also left unreturned; 20/20 covered parts of the trial though it’s not clear if they were there that day.

Beau Berentson said “Our office does not conduct legal research,” in an email.

But when asked if an investigation had been started or if anyone had been disciplined for allowing press to get so close to the jury- a major break in protocol according to everyone this reporter spoke with- Berentson did not respond.

While lawyers who spoke with this reporter said it was unprecedented that press would ever get so close to a jury during trial, they were split on its significance.

Michael McCray, a United States Department of Agriculture whistleblower and lawyer, said he believed that such an interaction would cause all sorts of thoughts to enter a jury’s head “not one will be about the merits of the case.”

Lee Dryer is a Nashville attorney and part-time judge.

No trial is perfect,” Dryer said, but was less concerned since nothing about the case was discussed.

Dryer said he was more concerned with an allegation of witness tampering; Samantha Rucki, Grazzini-Rucki’s daughter who ran away, responded to Kelli Coughlin a Lakeville Police Department Detective, who asked her if she was at a police interview conducted approximately a month before her mother’s trial.

This police interview occurred approximately a month prior to her mother’s trial on June 30, 2016.

They (her father and his sister) basically said I have to (go to the interview) and I have to be here and I have to recant everything I said and it’s going and that’s the way it’s gonna be- and they made me feel guilty about it and I started to cry.” Samantha responded when asked if she was at the interview of her own free will.

Judge Asphaug refused to allow the interview into Grazzini-Rucki’s trial, Samantha Rucki testified by Skype, with her aunt, grandmother, and attorney in the same room but not in camera, her father was listening in from outside the door.

David Rucki Facebook April 2016, Public Statement About Missing Daughters

Furthermore, Judge Asphaug would only allow a limited number of questions. Samantha then downplayed the abuse and claimed she ran away to get away from a bad divorce.

Dryer said that having Samantha testify by Skype raises sixth amendment issues, of a defendant confronting their accuser.

Judge Asphaug argued that Samantha was too fragile to see her mother, but child rape victims are forced to confront their alleged rapist if that rapist is to be convicted.

In their response brief, prosecutors argued that since they weren’t directly involved in the witness tampering, they shouldn’t be held responsible.

Appellant (Evavold) fails to detail what misconduct Respondent (Dakota County Prosecutor) engaged in. In support of her argument, Appellant points to an interview that was conducted by law enforcement of SVR (Samantha). Appellant is under the misbelief that Respondent somehow coerced SVR into providing the statement and that SVR lied in the statement.

The prosecutor’s brief only alludes to a police interview but does not detail what Samantha said in the interview.

Dede Evavold also argued that there was judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, charges not answered by Backstrom.

Judge Asphaug placed herself on Evavold’s, Grazzini-Rucki’s, and the Dahlen’s cases, and refused to recuse herself when each of the four defendants asked.

Furthermore, in 2010, she appears to have fixed a case for David Rucki.

On September 8, 2009, David Rucki went into a fit of rage against his neighbors while they were escorting approximately a dozen two and three-year-old children to the daycare facility they ran.

Complainant stated his wife, two children, and six daycare kids ages three and under were in the driveway when suspect (David Rucki) approached. He stated the suspect threatened his wife, his son, and called them all assholes while standing in the cul-de-sac in front of their home. While I was speaking with the complainant, he informed me that the suspect drove by as we were speaking and put up his middle finger on his left hand at him. Complainant said that they have had on-going harassment type issues with the suspect and his dogs as a result of operating a home daycare facility. He said suspect’s dogs repeatedly come into his yard when daycare parents and kids arrive, barking and growling and the guests as the children are dropped off. He said they have tried to talk to the suspect in the past to mediate the situation, but that he no longer feels comfortable due to elevated language and behavior.

Rucki was charged with disorderly conduct and the case came in front of Judge Asphaug. On the eve of trial, Asphaug dismissed the case for a lack of probable cause, an inexplicable decision which has never been explained.

Lack of probable cause applies to cases with little or no evidence not an incident witnessed by several adults and approximately twelve children. Furthermore, if a case is dismissed due to a lack of probable cause it would be during normal pre-trial hearings, not on the eve of trial, and there’s no evidence that any sort of motion was even filed to trigger this.

Asphaug proceeded to exclude approximately 90% of the evidence of abuse: including David Rucki’s police report, all Child Protective Services reports, all orders for protection against David Rucki, and letters, from Sandra Grazzini Rucki’s, Dede Evavold’s, and the Dahlen’s trials.

Backstrom’s office provided answers to most of the charges of judicial misconduct but not all.

For instance, in their reply brief, the prosecution claims that Grazzini-Rucki only referred to three items as being excluded: The Fox 9 Newscast from June 2013, the GPS tracker from when David Rucki placed a tracker under Grazzini-Rucki’s friend and advocate’s car, Michael Rhedin, and Social Services records.

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

But while Grazzini-Rucki did complain about these, and their exclusion is significant, police reports, letters, and other recordings were also excluded; Sandra Grazzini-Rucki complained of clear judicial bias.

The prosecution downplayed in its brief the breadth of the evidence excluded during trial.

Backstrom’s office did not respond to emails for comment.”

Dierdre “Dede” Evavold Appeals Criminal Conviction

From Red Herring Alert blog… Dierdre “Dede” Evavold filed an appeals her criminal conviction State of MN vs. Deirdre Evavold A17-0200

Dede Evavold

Evavold Appeal 2017  is a compelling read that begins with the argument that Dede was wrongfully charged and convicted of parental deprivation and that, quote (p.5), “The affirmative defense did not need to be raised as there was substantial evidence supporting the affirmative defense. The state had all evidence that no crime was committed and that the girls ran away because of abuse...” That statement is validated by police reports that show when paternal aunt Tammy Love reported S.R. and G.R. as missing that she admitted the girls had run away because they were “upset because court ordered her and her sister to live with aunt…” Another police report dated 11/23/2015, the day the girls were found living at the Dahlen ranch again affirms they did run away of their own free will and would run again if forced to live with their abusive father,”Both girls made it very clear to me that if they were forced to go with their dad, they would run again…

The appeal also argues:

*The State purposely ignored allegations and documentation indicating child abuse of S.R. and G.R. occurred.

*The State refused to investigate allegations of witness tampering because it would hurt its case to do so.

*Additional charges were filed against Evavold after S.R. was forced to recant her statements due to pressure and intimidation asserted against her by father, David Rucki, and paternal aunt, Tammy Love. S.R.’s story then changed from her original statements, which is witness tampering. The State should have never been allowed to proceed with prosecution due to witness tampering. (p.8-9)

*The Dakota County Attorney’s Office obstructed the discovery process and failed to provide all evidence available to Evavold. (p.12-21)

*Prosecutor Kathryn Keena attempted to force Evavold to plead guilty without allowing her to see all of the evidence of the case, which has been dubbed a “trial by ambush”. (p. 16-17)

*Judge Karen Asphaug should have recused herself from the case because she was involved with previous criminal proceedings involving David Rucki where she ruled in his favor, and then concealed her role in the cases. (p.21) (Also read this expose written by journalist Michael Volpe on the subject: Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases? )

*Judge Asphaug assigned herself to all 4 criminal trials relating to the Grazzini-Rucki parental deprivation case, “this action led to knowledge of disputed facts and affected impartiality“.

(Side Note: Judge Asphaug’s husband David Warg is a former partner in a law firm with Judge Tim D. Wermager. Judge Wermager was the first judge assigned to the Grazzini-Rucki divorce. Wermager sworn in as judge)

*Due process violations prevented Evavold from getting a fair trial.

Additional information about the Grazzini-Rucki case, and the criminal trial of Dede Evavold can be heard at the following link: Dede Evavold: Paying for Being an Activist for Change. Village Connection Radio with Fletcher Long and Carlos Rivera.

 

Judge Karen Asphaug (Twitter)

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

REPOST CDN NEWS: Does a Recent Police Report Exonerate Sandra Grazzini-Rucki?

Does a recently found police report exonerate Sandra Grazzini-Rucki? <– READ FULL ARTICLE! 

Michael Volpe, of CDN News, reports on a newly released police report from the Lakeville P.D. that reveals that runaway teens, Samantha and Gianna Rucki, fought against returning to their father after being discovered living on a therapeutic horse ranch after going into hiding for more than 2 years. The girls decided to run away after the family court system failed to protect them from an abusive father and placed them into a custody situation they felt was unsafe.

That Samantha and Gianna threatened to run away from their father’s care AFTER being discovered by police the supports defense raised by mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, that she hid them for their safety (which is an affirmative defense). The girls demonstrated palpable fear of their father, David Rucki. It also validates the defense of Doug and Gina Dahlen who claimed both girls repeatedly threatened to run away if returned to their father, and they allowed the girls to stay on the ranch for their own safety, and that the girls were free to leave at any time but chose to stay of their own free will.

The police report, from November 21, 2015, was never seen before by Sandra who was charged with parental deprivation for her efforts to protect her daughters. As part of the discovery process, this police report should have been turned over to Grazzini-Rucki, and the 3 other defendants charged in this case.

According to Volpe: “If the Dakota County Prosecutor, whose office prosecuted the case, failed to provide this police report, this would be a “Brady violation” named after the U.S. Supreme Court Case Brady V Maryland, in which a conviction was overturned after prosecutors failed to provide exculpatory evidence, meaning, in this case, evidence favorable to the defense. In order for a legal proceeding to be just, all evidence must be shared with both sides…Ignoring Brady is not only an egregious violation of prosecutorial ethics…

Volpe goes on to say: “Given this issue, under normal circumstances, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s conviction would have been thrown out. But nothing has been normal in this case.

READ the police report for yourself –  Lakeville P.D. Supplement Report Grazzini-Rucki 11/21/2015

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom

Upon being found at a therapeutic horse ranch belonging to Doug and Gina Dahlen on 11/18/2015, the Rucki sisters told police they would run away again if returned to the care of their father, David Rucki.

According to the police report: “Samantha and Gianna came down, and immediately told us that they would not go back to their father. We told them that our first concern was their safety. I did ask them about the last time that they had heard from their mother, and they told me that they would not say anything without a lawyer.The report also indicated that Samantha has quote “issues with males”.

Arriving on scene was Detective Kelli Coughlin from the Lakeville police, who previously responded to an incident where Rucki swore and threatened a member of ex wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s family. The previous police report shows Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and the very real fear other people have of him. It also shows that Coughlin had knowledge of Rucki’s abuse violent behavior towards his family, and when the Lakeville P.D. pushed to return to the Rucki girls to a home they felt was unsafe, the Lakeville P.D. did so with full knowledge of the case, including abuse allegations.

The police report indicates the victim is fearful for his family and feels Rucki will follow through on his threats that include “I‘m coming after you and you won’t see me coming” and “It probably won’t be me (that will get you).” At the time of the incident, Sandra’s mother died the night before after an agonizing battle with cancer. While the family was still grieving Rucki fought to gain control of the family trust, and threatened and intimidated family members to stake a claim on something that was not legally or rightfully his. Rucki Police Report

Samantha and Gianna were assigned a social worker and also given a lawyer, both argued in court on behalf of the sisters that they their father and did not want to be placed in his care. The sisters stated they would attend therapy and not attempt to run away again if they were able to stay in foster care. Judge Michael Mayer of Dakota County denied the request, the sisters were sent to reunification therapy in rural California and then were placed backed into the custody of David Rucki, father, against their will.

Battered from the Bench: Magistrate Pastoor Advocates for Legal Protection of Abused Women, Does Opposite in Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Case

Battered from the Bench: Magistrate Pastoor Advocates for Legal Protection of Abused Women, Does Opposite in Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Case

Public Domain Images: Architecture – http://wallpaperswide.com, Lady Justice – http://www.picswalls.com. Edited by Justice Blog.

Child Support Magistrate Maria K. Pastoor claims to be a feminist and defender of battered women. She wrote in a widely publicized paper Police Training and the Effectiveness of Minnesota Domestic Abuse Laws (1984) that (p.9) “Prosecutors and judges, in particular, often ignore or trivialize the harm battered women suffer….At best, legal officers are consistent, at worst, criminal. If Pastoor really holds these beliefs, how can she justify the extreme rulings she has issued in the Grazzini-Rucki child support case?

The actions of the corrupt courts in Dakota County have hit Sandra Grazzini-Rucki like a massive earthquake, her life has been shaken to the core, causing devastation on every level. Sandra has been forcibly estranged from the five children she loves. Her 30+ year career as a flight attendant is in ruins and she is currently unemployed. All of her personal belongings have been seized by order of Judge David L. Knutson and turned over to abusive ex husband, David Rucki. In addition, any potential future income Sandra earns will be seized immediately handed to Rucki. Should Sandra become disabled or unable to work, even social security payments will be given to Rucki. Sandra now lives homeless, destitute and afraid for her life.

Just as earthquakes happen along the cracks in the surface of the earth, Sandra’s life has been cracked due to injustices of the court, and along those fault lines she would be struck again, this time in child support proceedings. Magistrate Pastoor, who once said, “The husband reasons that if his wife is bad, he is justified in hitting her. Because he is a man, he has the power to destroy what he does not like.”(p. 24) is now presiding over the Grazzini-Rucki child support case. Contrary to those remarks, Magistrate Pastoor has given David Rucki the power to destroy what he does not like – ex-wife, Sandra. Enabled by “injustice system”, Rucki has been given the tools to abuse, harass and stalk his ex-wife, Sandra, through the court system.

Magistrate Pastoor Has Connection to Judge Knuston, Asked to Be Appointed to Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Case

Magistrate Pastoor made great efforts to be put on the Grazzini-Rucki child support case. Throughout her appointment, Magistrate Pastoor has extended special treatment to David Rucki, and taken a radical departure from the law in doing so.

Are Magistrate Pastoor’s actions being influenced by her prior connection to Judge David L. Knutson? Magistrate Pastoor has previously worked side by side on the Parental Cooperation Taskforce with Judge Knutson, their professional relationship has spanned for years.

Consider this: An article written by journalist Michael Volpe Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases? exposes the unusual actions and rulings issued by Judge David Knutson in the Grazzini-Rucki case resulting in ex-husband David Rucki getting preferential treatment in court proceedings. In this article, Volpe raises the question – did Judge Knutson work to get himself onto the Grazzini-Rucki case and then fix cases in Rucki’s favor?

Here, again David Rucki is receiving special treatment in the court, in a similar pattern where the law is circumvented by the extreme and unusual actions of a judge and the other party, Sandra, is victimized when the legal system is used as a weapon rather than to dispense justice.

Pastoor Inflates Income of Homeless, Destitute Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Magistrate Pastoor says that “police must be trained to see a battered woman’s problems and take immediate steps to stop the violence against her...” Shouldn’t a judge or magistrate do the same?

Quoting Pastoor, “The primary problems should be self-evident in most cases–the man subjects the woman to physical and psychological torture. Police must be trained to see a battered woman’s problems and to take immediate steps to stop the violence against her. They should not provide an abusive man with an opportunity to discuss the woman’s supposedly provocative behavior.” (p. 35)

Throughout the Grazzini-Rucki legal proceedings, including child support, it is clear that financial abuse as well as what Magistrate Pastoor calls “physical and psychological torture” is occurring. Sandra’s very existence has been challenged by Rucki, who has enlisted the legal system to make her life as miserable as possible. The comforts most take for granted have been stripped from Sandra’s life – each day she faces the unknown of where she will sleep and if she will eat, haunted by the possibility of further court action against her. Her dreams at night are filled with images of her children, whom she has been prohibited from any contact with…only in dreams that she can see their precious faces again.

As a Magistrate, and as one who advocated for better legal protections for battered women, Pastoor should have been aware of tactics abusers use in legal proceedins and taken care that the court was not being used as a weapon. That is NOT what happened here.

Magistrate Pastoor also says a police officer “should not provide an abusive man with an opportunity to discuss the woman’s supposedly provocative behavior” yet in the Grazzini-Rucki child support case, she gives Rucki and his attorney, Lisa Elliot, not only a stage but a standing ovation to engage in victim blaming against Sandra. Magistrate Pastoor’s rulings are not based on fact or evidence but rely solely on the word of an abuser bent on destroying the victim.

What Rucki is really saying is that Sandra should be worked like a slave and then forced to turn over all of her income to him – this is abusive. Magistrate Pastoor says about the mentality of an abuser, ”In marriage relationships many men regard “their” women as property, with which they can do as they please. The man has the right to control the woman “by virtue of having penetrated her with his penis.” (p. 28) Once again Magistrate Pastoor says one thing and does another – her rulings only reinforce Rucki’s control over Sandra, and place her in a position of poverty and desperation where she cannot assert her rights, and has been deprived of basic human dignity.

Sandra has been chronically homeless since being illegally removed from her home by Judge Knutson on September 7, 2012. Judge Knutson then ordered that Sandra’s pay be garnished, which caused further financial hardship, and made it impossible for her to recover. In December 2015, the Red Herring Alert blog reported: Her wages are garnished 25% for payment of past marital taxes even though mother has been left destitute with prior use of MN Care Insurance and food stamps after the divorce. Her ex-husband’s income is in excess of $200,000 per month and he retains all of the marital property.” Red Herring Alert posted a picture of Sandra’s paycheck showing that after deductions, the net pay is negative – $2.49. How is Sandra supposed to survive..what the court system is doing to her amounts to attempted murder.

Despite the evidence showing Sandra’s poverty, and that she currently has NO income, Magistrate Pastoor imputed Sandra’s income at a whopping $4,143 a month! In the revised child support order, from October 13, 2016,Sandra Grazzini-Rucki ordered to pay $1K monthly child support  The order reflects Sandra has a monthly income of $0 zero dollars then includes an imaginary number in a “potential income” of $4143 a month. Child support is based on the “potential income” rather than the facts of the case.

The conditions of release, and complications of the criminal case, make it impossible for Sandra to work as a flight attendant. And with 6 felonies on her record, it has been impossible to obtain  employment. 

The State of Minnesota has since denied general assistance and food support to Sandra, she lives day to day in an unimaginable fight for survival. Sandra is living in truly desperate circumstances… child support should have been put on reserve.

Sandra has since filed an appeal in both her criminal court case, and filed an appeal on the child support case…she will continue to fight for justice.

 

Ways YOU Can Show Support:

Please like and comment on the Sandra “Sam” Grazzini-Rucki Facebook Page

Tune into Sandra’s weekly show Fighting B.A.C.K. on “Future of Our Children” radio from 6-8 pm EST/5-7 pm Central: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/futureofourchildren

Please like, comment and repost articles from the Justice Blog and from journalist Michael Volpe posting at CDN News: http://www.commdiginews.com/?s=grazzini-rucki

Use hashtag #grazzinirucki #riggedtrial and #evavold when posting

Mayhem with U.S. Marshals: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Journalist Michael Volpe on T.S. Radio

Listen Online: Updates: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki & Mike Volpe then, Sharmian Worely

Original Air Date: Sunday, April 23rd

HOUR 1:

Join us this evening as Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and nationally known reporter and journalist, Mike Volpe, as they discuss the curious interference of federal marshals in the Rucki divorce case. 

Sandra Grrazzini-Rucki is just one example of the notoriously infamous Dakota County, Minnesota legal system which appears to be joined at the hip with local law enforcement for purposes of harassing and intimidating some individuals unfortunate enough to come in contact with either of them.  The Rucki case is just one example of money and connections overriding the law. 

At issue this evening is, the interference of federal marshals in a domestic divorce case.  Federal marshals are claimed to be an administrative officer of a U.S. judicial district who performs duties similar to those of a sheriff.  So how were their services secured against Sandra when the divorce is not a federal issue? 

“The duties of the U.S. Marshals Service include protecting the federal judiciary, apprehending federal fugitives, managing and selling seized assets acquired by criminals through illegal activities, housing and transporting federal prisoners and operating the Witness Security Program.”

HOUR 2:

Sharmian Worely will be updating us on the attempt to compromise her legal standing by the courts.  Sharmian has been in a monumental battle for the protection of her mother from a known predator guardian/attorney.  Tune in to hear the latest updates in this story which highlights the egregious abuse of the system by a known predator who has made it clear that she controls the system and the courts no matter whom it harms.  Sharmian is refusing to back down in her efforts to protect her mother from the abuse of the system even as they attempt to use the system to compromise her efforts.

 

 

Repost Red Herring Alert: We’re Not Crazy..The Systems Are!

From Red Herring Alert Blog: We’re Not Crazy. . .The Systems Are!

Dede Evavold (Linked In)

“The degree of insanity in the courts is something that is indescribable unless you have witnessed it for yourself. Small is big, left is right, slow is fast, up is down and weak is strong.

A term  has even been coined for individuals that experience psychic injuries due to assaults by legal abuses, ethical violations, betrayals, and fraud in the court system. It’s called “legal abuse syndrome” and was identified by Dr.Karen Huffer, a marriage and family counselor who was also brutally defrauded in the courts.

In my case State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227the court ordered that I complete a forensic psychological evaluation and cognitive skills assessment as I showed no remorse or comprehension” for my actions. The absence of remorse should never justify additional punishment because due process guarantees defendants the right to assert their innocence, and defendants cannot be expected to show remorse if they do not admit the crime.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govhttps:

The goal was always to get me to plead guilty or be found guilty when I’m not!…Anyhow, I completed my court ordered evaluation and unfortunately for those that wanted me to be diagnosed with a mental illness, I passed!”

 

This article by Dede Evavold discusses corruption and abuses of power in Dakota County, as evidence by the injustices perpetrated in the Grazzini-Rucki case. Dede says,”As I’ve stated before, the overall goal is to break you down and get you to accept any injustice thrown at you. This was done through the use of perjured testimony,  illegal withholding and suppression of evidence to use in support of the affirmative defense, due process violations, witness tampering, abuse of discretion, judicial bias and malicious prosecution…“Against incredible odds, Dede remains strong and continues to expose the down and dirty in Dakota County.

NOTE: Dakota County’s misuse of psychological testing is not only a waste of tax payer dollars, but is a form of medical malpractice. Tests are court ordered under threat of jail and other punishment, then forcibly being performed on people with no prior history of mental health concerns, and who show no danger to themselves on society. The purpose of testing done in this manner is NOT to rehabilitate an offender or determine a risk to society but rather used as a way to manipulate litigants when the law does not support the agenda of court professionals (judges, prosecutors, probation officers etc) 

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki have also passed her court ordered psychological exams, including the one taken for the criminal trial. NO sign of mental illness or mental defect was found.

In addition, as part of her job as a flight attendant, Sandra was required to take psychological tests and over the course of her 30+ year career, has passed every test and shown no cause for concern. Judge David Knutson who presided over the Grazzini-Rucki family court case refused to accept the testing done through the airlines and insisted Sandra complete additional testing; in all has completed and passed 6 separate tests, administered at different times from the beginning of the family court cases to the present.

Other examples of  retaliation and wrongful prosecuted are included in the “We’re Not Crazy.. Systems Are!” article include the story of whistle blower attorney Jill Clark and attorney Michelle MacDonald who was retaliated against exposing systemic corruption in the case of  client, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. In BOTH of these cases, those who go up against the system are labelled mentally ill or otherwise incapable in an effort to silence them.

Source: http://ww2.carshdwallpaper.info

 

 

ABC 20/20 Tweet About Abuse of Rucki Teen Exposed As Misleading

“Footprints in the Snow” or Skating on Thin Ice??

Shocking development from journalist Michael Volpe, who has been covering the Grazzini-Rucki caseABC’s ’20/20′ tweets misleading information on Rucki story (CDN News)

A recent social media post from ABC 20/20 raises more questions about their portrayal of the Grazzini-Rucki case, which was featured in the episode “Footprints in the Snow”. 20/20 has been criticized for ignoring critical facts, and refusing to include evidence of abuse.

20/20 recently updated, and re-aired “Footprints” at the end of March 2017. By then ABC had ample time to further investigate the Grazzini-Rucki case, and include any information that was omitted in the original episode. They refused to do so. In addition, ABC had been the target of an onslaught of public complaint from viewers who were familiar with the case and recognized critical information was missing or inaccurately portrayed. There have also been news reports published with new information on the case. ABC 20/20 selected information from news sources, such as Sandra’s sentencing, to include in the updated episode of “Footprints” while continuing to ignore evidence of abuse.

In a post dated March 26, 2017, made when 20/20 updated their story, claims “Samantha denies that her father ever hit her.” However, in a police interview from June 2016, she said the OPPOSITE of what the post suggested and “The ABC tweet is even more misleading, given that Samantha Rucki also told Detective Coughlin that her father was pressuring her into recanting prior allegations of abuse…

This article uncovers evidence and documentation regarding domestic violence, child abuse, and David Rucki’s extensive criminal history that ABC 20/20 failed to include  in “Footprints”. You will also hear reports from witnesses who had experienced Rucki’s frightening and violent behavior.
None of this was included in the “Footprints” episode.

E-mail complaints, thoughts and feedback about “Footprints in the Snow” to ABC 20/20 at:

elizabeth.a.vargas@abc.com  and  sean.dooley@abc.com

Elizabeth Vargas, journalist and anchor, ABC 20/20

Elizabeth Vargas, journalist and anchor, ABC 20/20

Sean Dooley, Producer, ABC 20/20 (Twitter)

Sean Dooley, Producer, ABC 20/20 (Twitter)