David Rucki Abuse Cover Up: Motion to Remove Online Posts That Expose Him as an Abuser, Criminal

Source: Michael Volpe Coverage of Rucki’s “Emergency Motion”

(Lakeville, Minnesota) Once again David Rucki is desperate to remove an article from the internet. It’s about how he beat his wife and unborn child because he found out his unborn child “wasn’t perfect.”

Rucki is a dangerous abuser who has threatened, harassed and intimidated anyone who has exposed his abuse, and the various crimes he is perpetrating.Already the Carver County blog was pulled off the internet after threats of legal action from Rucki… and all traffic is re-routed to a hateful disinfo blog that spreads his lies. Don’t let Rucki get away with this!! 

From Michael Volpe: “I think Mr. Rucki needs to be introduced to the Streisand Effect, using the courts to suppress information will only spread that information far and wide. Please share, copy and paste and if you have a website, please put the article on your site. For a bonus send his attorney Lisa Elliott an email and let her know that you found the article because of the motion she filed. lisa@elliottlaw.net”

David Rucki mugshot



#grazzinirucki #rucki4jail

More from Michael Volpe: “It appears David Rucki is using the courts to remove an article from the internet. Acccording to a recently filed motion, Rucki is asking for an emergency hearing to remove a story entitled Beaten Before Born: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Assaulted While Pregnant – Rucki Wanted to Kill Baby Because He ‘Wasn’t Perfect’”. It was published on Red Herring Alert, a blog which Dede Evavold contributes to. Rucki, due to restrictive probation conditions, believes he can force the removal of this blog from the internet. See his petition: Rucki ‘Emergency’ Motion 

Though David Rucki claimed this was an emergency, the blog was originally published on December 18, 2017. Why he waited two months to take action on an emergency only he can explain…”

Here it is Beaten Before Born

 

Advertisements

The Art of Insult: Dede Evavold Responds to Slander from Rucki Supporter

Source: Red Herring Alert: The Art of Insult

Posted: Dede Evavold, 1/22/2018

Thirty years after he authored The Art of the Deal, Donald Trump used The Art of the Insult to brand political opponents and bash the media all the way to the White House. While critics insisted “The Donald” was merely a chaotic sideshow, Trump was dominating the 24-hour news cycle with a master plan of political incorrectness. In this film, Trump emerges as a marketing genius and performance artist who, despite being a Manhattan billionaire, captured the hearts of middle America. Critics are calling Trump: The Art of the Insult “the most entertaining political documentary ever!

Michael Cindy Bradykorb would do well to understand that you CAN insult people, you just CAN’T slander and defame others by implication.

You would think he’d have a thicker skin since he has quite a few unsavory scandals under his belt, but he is exquisitely susceptible to criticism and takes great pains to devalue or invalidate the person criticizing him. Clearly, he can dish it out but he can’t take it!

Below are examples of threatening people that aren’t even involved in this ridiculous saga. WTF Mikey??

 

Let me explain what collusion is:
It’s an agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain    something that is prohibited by law. (Things like other people’s trust funds, foreclosure schemes, you know things like that.)

 

Reporting crimes is NOT collusion. That would be reporting criminal activity. Not reporting it is “failure to report a crime.” If I remember right, I think I was accused of failing to report a crime. The truth is, we did report numerous crimes, but they were ignored by every agency!

Below are articles Mr. Bradykorb has written about me. I did not go running to law enforcement or file a lawsuit even though these are clearly libelous statements and defamation by implication.

Evavold’s arraignment next week comes in the wake of two recent sentences in Minnesota, both for charges under Minnesota’s newly enacted “Revenge Porn” law. OCTOBER 11, 2017

Two men pleaded guilty for violating Minnesota’s “Revenge Porn” law


Evavold defends Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan, and white supremacist gathering in Charolettesville   AUGUST 17, 2017

Dede Evavold’s dangerous and demented deception JULY 3, 2017 

It is Evavold who is considered by many to be the most dangerous and demented of the adults involved in the disappearance of the xxxxx xxxxxxx.

1:09 PM – 1 Sep 2017
Missing in Minnesota @missinginmn
@PROTECT #Evavold is dangerous. She can’t be around minor children. Her use of your logo should be concerning. Read… https://t.co/gSOdsh0cjC 12:21 PM – 1 Sep 2017


Related image

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

(Double click to zoom)

 

 

 

 

 

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

Image result for save the date

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

Dede Evavold (Source: Linked In)

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

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

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

Sean Dooley (Source: Linked In)

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Source: More Unedited 20/20 Footage

 

Attack Blogger Michael Brodkorb Caught Spreading Misinformation on #Evavold Appeal

Michael Cindy Bradykorb Can’t Read Court Documents

Missing in Minnesota

Missing in Minnesota

“UPDATE: Dede Evavold loses appeal of her criminal conviction

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

 

MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Appeal 2017

Reply Brief Evavold

Michael Volpe Reveals: Rucki Hires High Buck Attorneys in Lawsuit To Say He is Not Dangerous or Abusive

David Rucki

Michael Volpe reveals another twist to the Grazzini-Rucki case in his latest article: David Rucki Claims Pastor and It’s Church Helped Hide His Daughters

David Rucki filed a lawsuit seeking $250,000 in damages against several people and entities including a church and it’s pastor, and even the pastor’s wife, (as the lawsuit states) for making false claims that he is dangerous, when he is not, and encouraging his daughters to “leave their home”.

Rucki may spend nearly that amount on attorney’s fees alone – high buck Marshall Tanick and Lisa Elliott have been retained to represent Rucki in this lawsuit; the estimated costs of their services exceeds $1,000 per hour. It has not been explained how Rucki can afford legal representation from two attorneys, considering he claims that he is impoverished and is receives welfare.

From Volpe,“Even more shockingly, Rucki continues to qualify for public assistance while being able to hire two attorneys simultaneously.

David Rucki, who received 100% of the marital assets including four homes, nine cars, and a multi-million-dollar business along with sole custody of their five children, still qualified for public assistance through this very program.

‘The Father receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to the Title IV D of the Social Security Act,” said Judge Maria Pastoor in 2016, using this assistance as justification for ordering Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month in child support…'”

Volpe’s investigation of the case has revealed that,”..there is overwhelming evidence that almost anyone is in danger being in David Rucki’s presence.. And includes details of Rucki’s long history of violent, and criminal behavior, including,”Ten different people- his ex-wife, five children, two neighbors, in-law, and mailman- all previously successfully took out a restraining order against him.. If this lawsuit goes forward, more information concerning Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and the abuse of his family, are expected to emerge.

Rucki claims the defendants, which include, Dede Evavold and ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, compelled then teenage daughters S.R. and G.R. to “leave their home” and stay on a ranch for abused children by using “false statements” and “false threats” that their father, Rucki, is violent and would hurt them.

According to Volpe,“Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home from the care of their paternal aunt and to go with Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud Sauk Center and White Horse Ranch based on false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.” The lawsuit further states.

The lawsuit does not explain why this random church, its pastor and wife would go along with this scheme if indeed the girls were being manipulated into staying there by false threats…”

Both S.R. and G.R. stated the reason they ran away because the family court failed to keep them safe from their abusive father, Rucki, and they felt endangered in the current custody arrangement. Statements made by S.R. and G.R. have been consistent, and have not changed, until Rucki sent them out of state, under the watch of a guard, for “reunification therapy”. S.R. later admitted during a police interview that Rucki “pressured” and “guilted” her into recanting abuse allegations.

The lawsuit filed by Rucki states the defendants failed to notify authorities that S.R. and G.R. were staying on the ranch in violation of a court order.  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and co-defendants Dede Evavold as well as Doug and Gina Dahlen have all been charged with felony deprivation of parental rights, and convicted, for their role in assisting the girls.

The church, and it’s pastor, named in this lawsuit have never been implicated nor charged in connection with the disappearance of S.R. and G.R., who ran away in April 2013 and stayed on the Dahlen’s ranch until November 2015.

Another woman who assisted the runaway Rucki teens, Lori Musolf, has avoided criminal charges entirely. Musolf had extensive conversations with the runaway Rucki sisters in the days after their disappearance. Musolf also arranged the interview, and acted as a go between, for the Rucki sisters to appear on Fox 9 with Trish van Pilsum. She also failed to notify authorities. Will Rucki name Musolf in the lawsuit and seek damages against her???

Stay tuned for developments…

Read More:

Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story

Multiple Witness Reports: Rucki Sisters Fearful of Father, Felt Safe at Ranch

Why Hasn’t Lori Musolf Been Charged for her Role in Assisting Runaway Rucki Sisters?

 

Dakota County ADMITS Charging Evavold with Probation Violation Despite No Proof of Wrongdoing

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.

___________________

Probation Violation Hearing

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.

Stay tuned for the outcome. . .

 Also Read:
  1. 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.