Allegations of Mortgage Fraud Surround David Rucki

(Dakota County, Minn, 1/21/2018) Michael Volpe investigates mortgage fraud in the Grazzini-Rucki case: David Rucki Commits Apparent Mortgage Fraud

By Michael Volpe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The initial document which started this investigation was sent by Michael Brodkorb, who runs a blog dedicated to bad mouthing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and anyone who supports her, to an Angie Young.

He sent it to Young because the initial document is signed A. Young and Angie Young is neighbors with Dede Evavold, a supporter of Grazzini-Rucki.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As his divorce was heating up, David Rucki engaged in blatant and brazen mortgage fraud.

According to the tract search, on June 3, 2011, the mortgage on Rucki’s Lakeville home was satisfied, meaning it was paid off, but inexplicably, his house was then foreclosed on- only to have him or his agents buy it back at auction every time- and sold at auction four times.

Rucki continues to own the property with numerous dubious and potentially fraudulent entries.

In the first case, Deutsche Bank Trust is listed as a brand-new mortgagor, the one providing the loan, on June 30, 2012.

On October 11, 2012, as part of a foreclosure, Deutsche Bank Trust was removed as the mortgagor in pen on the property and Wallingford Capital was written in instead.

Lawton King at Deutsche Bank said the loan was being serviced by Ocwen which provided this statement: “This loan is not in our system. We also checked different variation.”

Deutsche Bank, and their public affairs officer Lawton King, did not provide any further details on what happened to the loan.

According to the same document, Wallingford Capital then assumed this loan of $140,365 at 4.75%, an unusually low rate for a property bought at foreclosure, but David Rucki continued to remain in the property. Wallingford Capital did not return a message for comment.

The law firm Shapiro and Zielke was listed as handling the sale; their managing partner, Lawrence Zielke, issued this statement.

“This was a public sale.  We do not control which party bids at sale. I suggest you consult with your own real estate lawyer so counsel can walk your through this process.   I have nothing further to say on this matter.”

But Sandra Grazzini-Rucki said she spoke with a realtor who tried to attend one of the four so-called foreclosure sales; the realtor said they were not allowed in and the sale was done privately, with no prior public announcement, and not publicly as is supposed to be done.

Zielke had no further comment.

Realty Listing Photos Ireland Place

In another case, Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliott, places an attorney’s lien on Rucki’s property in the amount of $60,000 on July 12, 2012.

Elliott, who has represented Rucki in his divorce starting around this time, did not respond to an email for comment.

She then transferred that lien to NJD Properties which then transferred the lien to Danmark Properties.

Brian Hoelscher represented NJD in the transaction: “I had a look at title and have attached the tract history.  Mr. Rucki’s attorney had a lien on the property from the divorce, the first mortgage went into foreclosure so my client bought the attorney lien to be in line to redeem as a junior creditor in the event that Mr. Rucki did not redeem as owner.  That is a typical transaction for my client.  I advised my client to get a confirmation from the debtor as to the validity of the attorney lien (which is the document to which you were referring that I drafted) since the lien is involuntary and without the confirmation could be contested and found ultimately worthless. 

“My client bought the lien and soon thereafter sold the position to Danmark Properties LLC.  Mr. Rucki redeemed as the owner and Danmark Properties LLC had a foreclosure sale to enforce the attorney lien.  Mr. Rucki again redeemed as the owner.  It looks like he still owns it subject to existing liens including the 2^nd mortgage in favor of Excel Bank recorded as Document No. 2263968 (unless that was paid but never satisfied of record) as well as other possible lien(s) and the mortgage he took out in 2015.  It doesn’t look like he avoided any of the liens so I am not sure where you got your information.  In any event, to the extent that anything nefarious was occurring, it certainly did not involve my client.”

But according to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, this explanation makes no sense. First, Elliott had only started to represent David Rucki, it’s not clear how she even racked up $60,000 in fees if it had been less than a month. (It’s noteworthy that he now demands child support from the homeless Sandra Grazzini-Rucki)

Second, she said the divorce judge, Judge David Knutson, ordered that this lien be paid from the trust of her parents.

Knutson ordered 100% of the marital estate to go to David Rucki, ordered that Sandra Grazzini-Ruck pay child support and alimony, along with ordering that David Rucki receive sole custody of the children.

Knutson did not respond to an email for comment.

Finally, David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who should have no trouble paying a $60,000 debt.

Danmark properties then pops up again on the tract search as the purchaser of a loan at a foreclosure auction on December 18, 2013.

But David Rucki continued to live in the property throughout, he then purchased the property at another foreclosure auction on June 10, 2014.

In other words, he didn’t have money to pay for the monthly mortgage payment but somehow had enough money to purchase the entire mortgage.

Attorney Lisa Elliot

Then, Lisa Elliott transferred yet another lien to David Rucki on March 10, 2014. It’s not clear what lien this is as she had supposedly sold her lien to NJD Properties.

Danmark Properties did not respond to an email for comment.

Finally, David Rucki then transferred to mortgage to his parent’s trust on April 29, 2015, and that trust currently owns the property which he lives on.

He also owns three other homes.

The initial document which started this investigation was sent by Michael Brodkorb, who runs a blog dedicated to bad mouthing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and anyone who supports her, to an Angie Young.

He sent it to Young because the initial document is signed A. Young and Angie Young is neighbors with Dede Evavold, a supporter of Grazzini-Rucki.

Young denied making the document and Brodkorb said: “You clearly received this document from Mrs. Evavold, as it contains the file I named and sent to Mrs. Young.

“Mrs. Young confirmed tonight that she did not author this document in 2013, and the authenticity of the underlying document is in doubt.

“This won’t stop you from publishing it again, but I cannot publish this document since the alleged author denies the document is truthful.”

But Young, in an interview with me, didn’t deny the document’s truthfulness but having put it together entirely.

Brodkorb had no comment on how a property could be foreclosed on so many times by a multi-millionaire and the numerous disappearing mortgages.

I also sent these documents to 20/20 and the President of ABC, Channing Dungey, without response, however less than a week after sending these documents Elizabeth Vargas surprised the media world by announcing she was leaving ABC after more than two decades with the network.

It’s not clear if the two events are correlated.

20/20 ignored a mountain of evidence of abuse in favor of painting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki as mentally unstable and not providing any evidence of abuse.

Grazzini-Rucki said a source in ABC said 20/20 made a secret deal with David Rucki about which questions he could be asked and even gave him editing power over the broadcast.

Vargas and the two producers- Sean Dooley and Beth Mullens- of the 20/20 broadcast of this story declined to respond to numerous emails when I raised this allegation.

Dungey also declined to respond to emails to confirm or deny this allegation. Lisa Elliott also did not respond to emails to confirm or deny this allegation.

Check out David Rucki’s mortgage fraud dossier here.

Check out the tract search on Rucki’s property here.

Judge Halbrooks: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Too Poor For Court Costs But Can Pay Child Support

December 8, 2017: Michael Volpe

Source: Judge Halbrooks: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Too Poor For Court Costs But Can Pay Child Support

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This is not the first time Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks has ruled on matters related to Grazzini-Rucki.

In September 2012, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered out of her home, out of the state, and ordered not to contact anyone she knew.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Months after a Minnesota Appeal’s Court Judge ruled that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was capable of paying nearly $1,000 per month in child support, the same judge ruled that paying several hundred dollars in her ex-husband’s court costs would be too burdensome.

On December 1, 2017, Minnesota Appeal’s Court Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks ruled on Sandra Grazzini-Rucki paying for David Rucki’s court costs.

“Although David Rucki prevailed on appeal, it appears that allowance of the claimed costs and disbursements would cause financial hardship, in light of the district court’s determination that appellant (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.”

When someone receives in forma pauperis status, they are deemed to poor to afford an attorney.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been represented in her divorce since early 2013 by Michelle MacDonald, who has worked pro-bono since receiving a $5,000 payment at the beginning of the case.

The same Judge, Jill Flaskamps-Halbrooks, ruled in September 2017 that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki had the ability to pay her ex-husband $975 per month in child support, despite Grazzini-Rucki being convicted of six felonies, homeless, and unemployed.

Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks. Source: http://www.mncourts.gov

“Grazzini-Rucki asserts that she had no ability to pay child support because her employment with the airline was ‘in flux’ and that the CSM made ‘vague, generalized and conclusory findings’ that did not justify imputing income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1.5 But these assertions misconstrue the record, particularly the evidence admitted during the September 2016 hearing. The CSM found that after Grazzini-Rucki was released from jail, she submitted a document in March 2016 that stated that she currently worked as a flight attendant Grazzini-Rucki testified, and the CSM acknowledged, that her status of employment was unknown at the time of the September 2016 hearing. But Grazzini-Rucki did not provide any evidence that her employment status had changed or that her employment had been terminated after March 2016.” Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks asserted in her August ruling, when she confirmed that an earlier ruling ordering Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband $975 per month was appropriate.

After Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks ruled in his favor in the child support appeal, his attorney, Lisa Elliott, filed to recoup his court costs.

Elliott did not respond to an email for comment.

David Rucki was granted child support even though he already received 100% of a multi-million-dollar estate which included numerous homes, classic cars, and the entirety of a thriving trucking business.

David Rucki

Rucki was also granted sole custody of the children and Grazzini-Rucki has not been allowed to see her children since early 2013; the divorce decision, handed down by Judge David Knutson, is one of the most one sided in the history of divorces.

Emails to Flaskamps-Halbrooks and Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, were left unreturned.

The original ruling, made by Judge Maria Pastoor, was made in August 2016, while Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was awaiting sentencing for her role in hiding her two oldest daughters after they were forced by the Minnesota court system to live with their father.

Their father, David Rucki, has a long history of abuse including: a bar fight, a road rage incident, incidents of stalking, multiple violations of restraining orders and choking his wife.

A child protective services report stated that his son, Nico, claimed that David Rucki stuck a gun to his head when he was eight years old.

None of this evidence of abuse was allowed into her criminal case by the trial judge, Karen Asphaug.

The judge in their custody matter, David Knutson, also excluded all this evidence when custody was being determined.

This is not the first time Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks has ruled on matters related to Grazzini-Rucki.

In September 2012, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered out of her home, out of the state, and ordered not to contact anyone she knew.

The ruling, made by Judge Knutson, was made after a telephonic conference which Grazzini-Rucki did not participate in.

When Judge Knutson refused to reverse the order, Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, appealed to Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks who said the order was constitutional because it was a temporary order.

Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks also upheld Grazzini-Rucki’s conviction despite nearly all evidence that David Rucki is an abuser being stricken by the trial judge, Karen Asphaug.

There was also witness tampering and jury tampering.

In a police interview approximately a month before the trial, Grazzini-Rucki’s daughter, Samantha, told a police officer that her father was pressuring her to recant previous allegations of abuse.

“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 told the detective in that interview.

Grazzini-Rucki’s defense was that her ex-husband was violent and abusive, and she hid her daughters to protect them from danger.

Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks decided that Grazzini-Rucki received a fair trial despite these issues being presented in appeal.

Millionaire Rucki Seeks Court Filing Costs from Homeless, Destitute Ex-Wife

That David Rucki would file a motion to compel homeless, destitute ex-wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, to pay for his own court costs in legal proceedings that have destroyed her life.. is the same as charging for the nail he is driving into her coffin.

This is no different than what Saddam Hussein would do to his victims.. shoot them dead and then charge the family for the bullet.

https://ppjg.me/2017/09/08/though-the-court-has-ruled-sandra-grazzini-rucki-too-poor-to-pay-for-her-own-filings-her-ex-husbands-attorney-thinks-she-should-pay-for-his/

The latest from journalist Michael Volpe…

 

Lisa Elliott, the long-time attorney for David Rucki, filed a notice for a taxation of costs- meaning she wants the other side to pay for the costs of filing- with the appeals court.

Attorney Lisa Elliot

In her response, Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald explained to the court that her client is a pauper.

“Appellant, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, hereby objects to the taxation of costs and disbursements dated September 1, 2017,” MacDonald said in her response, “on the ground that: Appellant was granted informa pauperis status and is a pauper.”

By granting Grazzini-Rucki informa pauperis status the court has deemed Grazzini-Rucki too poor to afford to pay for her own filing fees and they are thereby waived; but that hasn’t stopped Elliott from demanding she pay for her client’s filing fees.

David Rucki

MacDonald, after receiving a $5,000 retainer in early 2013, has been working on Grazzini-Rucki’s custody case pro-bono; she was once forced to conduct part of a custody trial while handcuffed to a wheelchair.

The latest filing follows a similar filing by Elliott in late August asking the court which handled her client’s divorce to order Grazzini-Rucki to pay for all the filing fees- in excess of $3,000- she accrued in that court.

The series of events defy logic.

Late last month, the same appeals court upheld a previous ruling by Judge Maria Pastoor which ordered Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband nearly $1,000 in child support.

That appeal’s decision was authored by Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks.

David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who received 100% of the marital estate- which included a business, four homes, and nine classic cars- by an order of Judge David Knutson despite the standard in all divorce that distributions of marital estates be “equitable”.

Realty Listing Photos Ireland Place

While the court on one hand has recognized Grazzini-Rucki’s pauper status, the same court has ordered her to pay child support to a multi-millionaire even though she is homeless, penniless and jobless, rendered that way by the same court which is now ordering her to pay child support.

Lisa Elliott has refused to respond to repeated emails for comment.

Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota Courts, also did not respond to an email for comment.

___________________

Beau Berentson, Director of Communications and Public Affairs at the Minnesota Judicial Branch, receives his salary from the tax payers of Minnesota… and it is his job to answer your questions or comments, including those about the Grazzini-Rucki case.

Contact: Beau Berentson
Court Information Office
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
(651) 296-6043 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)

Send e-mail via contact form at: Minnesota Court Information Office

Or: beau.berentson@courts.state.mn.us

View this document on Scribd

Realty Websites Shine Reality on Rucki’s Fraudulent HRO vs Dede Evavold

Public Domain: redherringalert.wordpress.com

Update on Dede Evavold HRO… one of the complaints against Evavold in the fraudulent HRO filed by Davd Rucki is that she posted pictures of Rucki’s home on social media.

Dede Evavold on HRO: When We Lose Free Speech

Turns out that, in fact pictures of both the Ireland Place property and the property in Farmington, owned by David Rucki, were previously posted online in a realty listing. The photos of both homes have existed online for many years, and were made publicly available even before Evavold’s criminal trial began. These pictures are now in the public domain. 

What’s next an HRO filed against the realtor, against Google??

See for yourself:

Fraud on Farmington Property

Rucki’s Farmington Property: http://www.movoto.com/lakeville-mn/17549-flagstaff-ave-lakeville-mn-55024-651_4573184

Movato – Farmington Home

At some point Rucki listed this home in Farmington for sale, and his realtor created a site including interior and exterior photos of the home. Rucki then de-listed the house… if he was so poor and in need of public assistance, why not just sell the home and use the proceeds to support his family?

Rucki continues to keep ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki listed on the mortgage to the Farmington home — even to this day. Why? Rucki admitted in court that he masterminded a “paper divorce” and with the help of Judge Knutson, worked to destroy Sandra by depleting all of her financial assets. What came next was a series of court motions that made it impossible for Sandra to financially support herself, more court orders were issued to ban Sandra from all contact with family so she would not be able to receive any help or assistance. The sum of the 4,000+ court orders issued by Judge Knutson is the attempted murder of a loving stay at home mother, who became a liability to her abusive husband when she sought a divorce, and exposed his abuse of her and the children to the family court.

Judge Knutson drafted a court order that gave David Rucki 100% of the marital property, including the Farmington home. Sandra has zero rights or ownership to the property. At the same time, Judge Knutson allowed Rucki to leave Sandra on the mortgage of the Farmington home so that she could be held financially liable for the property. The Farmington property supposedly is also being used as a rental property, meaning Rucki generates income on it. A homeless woman is now being held financially responsible for the mortgage of her millionaire husband’s second home… by order of Judge Knutson.

Sandra is destitute and homeless. She has slept in the darkest corners…places most could not imagine, with only the rats scampering across the dirty streets to witness her desperation.  Huddled in castaway clothing to keep her warm, Sandra clutches legal papers to her chest, hoping that one day the truth will be revealed and she will exonerated and set free from this hellish life.

In comparison, abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, has been given exclusive ownership of not one but 4 separate homes, that they owned jointly during the marriage by order of Judge Knutson. In addition, Rucki has been given 100% of property inside all four homes – including every item of Sandra’s personal belongings down to from her family mementos down to her socks. Sandra’s name is listed on a mortgage of a home that she cannot step foot in even though she is so desperately in need of shelter. The Farmington home is beautifully remodeled with 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, cherry cabinets in the kitchen and adjacent to a city park. It is the perfect home for a family, but the happy laughter of children will remain forever silent in these empty rooms.

Stalking in Classic Cadillac – David Rucki

If that is not outrageous enough, while Sandra is living on the street, homeless, Rucki uses the pole barn in the back of the home as a luxury suite for his collection of classic cars. The cars even have a home, and are protected from the elements, while ex-wife Sandra is living on the streets. Rucki owns a total of 9 fully restored classic cars, with a specially designed lift to stack the cars so they will fit in the luxury suit. The rest of the luxury suite is Rucki’s own version of the playboy mansion and includes a fully stocked bar with the most expensive taste in liquor, includes a bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. The taxpayers are footing the bill for Rucki’s life of luxury since he is living off public assistance PLUS he writes off the entire Farmington property as a business expense on his taxes.

Public Domain: wall.alphacoders.com

While Sandra is living on the streets, Rucki is even able to provide his collection of cigars with a home. Rucki pays for 3 separate, exclusive memberships to house his collection of expensive cigars in a humidor, with personal use of a temperature controlled wall vault. Each vault is beautifully decorated with Rucki’s name engraved in gold (every welfare recipient should have their own humidor inside a cigar lounge!).

Clearly, Rucki doesn’t need to be on welfare, he is just scamming the system. Each cigar Rucki smokes, he burns up cash while he demands nearly $1,000 a month in child support from ex-wife Sandra. Sandra  is not only  homeless but the State of Minnesota has denied food support and general assistance to her, leaving her utterly destitute. Sandra should not even have to ask for welfare, nor should be homeless, had Rucki complied with the divorce on it’s original, mutually agreed upon terms, she would be living very well today, and financially stable, raising the five children she loves.

Judge David Knutson

If that is not bad enough, Sandra has also been court ordered by Judge Knutson to pay the millionaire’s credit card debt — and she has ZERO income. David Rucki is also using the Farmington address, and using Sandra’s name to charge up thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards, one example is this publicly listed notice from September 25, 2014: Capital Finance LLC v Rucki

According to the complaint, on May 1, 2004, Rucki opened a charge account with U.S. Bank, with $31,417 owed at the time of this notice posted in the newspaper. According to the complaint Rucki was “unjustly enriched” and refusing to pay back the amount owed.

David Rucki 3rd Party Complaint Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

So what is Rucki’s defense for going on a shopping spree and ringing up $31k in debt? Blame the debt on destitute, homeless ex-wife Sandra! In fact, Rucki actually cites a court order from Judge Knutson stating he has the right to shift ALL of his personal debt, that he acquired after the divorce, onto ex-wife Sandra. The summons here, filed by attorney Lisa Elliott (who charges $310 to “poor” Rucki living on public assistance) does not include the name or contact information for Sandra’s attorney in the notice. Which means Elliott is manipulating the legal process so that Sandra will not be able to respond, and Rucki will receive a favorable settlement by default.

Attorney Lisa Elliot. Source: redherringalert.wordpress.com

While David Rucki lives like a king in any one of the 4 fully furnished, beautifully decorated house of his choosing, he is purposefully driving ex-wife Sandra further into debt each day, and attempting to murder her by making it impossible for her to survive… Sandra is living on the street, somewhere.

Public Domain: wallpapercave.com

Judge Knutson should also be held responsible because he willingly took part in Rucki’s scam, that destroyed a family and is costing the taxpayers in the State of Minnesota millions the longer the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Rucki’s “paper divorce” continues. David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

It’s Not Right On Ireland Place

Realty Listing Photos Ireland Place

David Rucki is claiming that Dede Evavold is harassing him by posting pictures of his home on Ireland Place, that property is was also previously listed for sale on a realty site and posted online… and has remained online, in public view, for many years. Evavold is not responsible for actions that happened before her criminal trial, Rucki consented to put pictures of his home into the public domain, where they sit today.

The Ireland Place property owned by Rucki has been subject of a mortgage fraud complaint, that Dakota County and the State of Minnesota refuses to investigate.

Rucki put the Ireland Place home in foreclosure 7 times in one year and then bought the home at a rock bottom prices, far below market value.

Read the complaint at this link: mortgagefrauda

Another Day in Lawless Lakeville: Fraud & Financial Abuse Allegations Surround David Rucki

Just like the property in Farmington, the Ireland Place property was fully remodeled, listed for sale and then delisted and put back into Rucki’s ownership as part his “paper divorce” scam.

The (former) realty listing describes the luxurious home on Ireland Place: “Pack the bags and bring the family this fantastic 1 owner, 2 story awaits you. Cul-de-sac, walk to schools, Lake  and more. Lots of updates, stainless, carpets, paint, gorgeous hickory floors. Quality throughout. McDonald Built!”

Read More: Ireland Place on Zillow

The photos on Zillow are from a prior real estate listing for Ireland Place, MLS #4464616.

Note the family photo on the wall of the Rucki children, by court order of Judge Knutson that was also confiscated and turned over to Rucki. Sandra was not allowed to take even one picture of her children with her when she was removed from her home by order of Judge Knutson in Septmeber 2012. Then Rucki systemically removed every picture of Sandra from the house, every reminder, and through de-programming and reunification therapy has worked to remove Sandra’s memory from the minds of the children who have begged for their mother since the day she was forcefully, and unjustly removed from their lives. All of this done with the consent, and approval, of Judge Knutson who has been enriched by Rucki’s “paper divorce” scam.

Will Rucki File an HRO Against Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20 Next?

Let’s not forget that David Rucki appeared on a nationally televised show, 20/20 with Elizabeth Vargas on two separate occasions where he allowed his house to be filmed inside and out, and allowed filming of the minor children during a private family Christmas. The episode also featured family photos, including those of the minor children, and video footage that Rucki provided to 20/20. 20/20 also included the full legal names of the minor children.

Pictures of Rucki’s home and children were blasted across the country, and went viral, with his consent and now he is claiming his privacy is invaded and he feels harassed??

Rucki also requested the filming of the Grazzini-Rucki criminal case. Again, no concerns for privacy then, and the names of minor children were also made public.

And we are to believe Dede Evavold is to blame? Or to throw out the 1st Amendment to make blogging an illegal activity?

The HRO Rucki filed against Evavold is clearly fraudulent and constitutes legal abuse, if not a malicious lawsuit.

 

View this document on Scribd

 

 

 

Another Day in Lawless Lakeville: Fraud & Financial Abuse Allegations Surround David Rucki

This article is a compilation of the allegations, and related documentation, that suggest millionaire David Rucki may be involved in financial abuse or fraud. Numerous complaints have been filed against Rucki related to these allegations but he has avoided investigation by any agency in the State of Minnesota, and has never been formally charged with any crime. Instead, county and state offices at every level of government have extended preferential treatment towards Rucki, and even have given him state aid without asking Rucki for any verification of income, or other standard proofs to determine eligibility. Rucki is receiving state aid while he resides in a luxurious house, owns 2 others homes, and owns an estimated 9 personal vehicles and 3 boats all registered in his name. Clearly Rucki lives well above the poverty level.

During divorce proceedings, Rucki appeared in front of Judge David L Knutson and admitted that he was pursuing divorce to commit a financial fraud. Judge Knutson ignored that a crime was being committed in his own courtroom and systematically began to punish the victim of David’s schemes – ex wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. As a result of Judge Knutson’s extreme rulings, Sandra was forced out of her home and onto the streets. She has been forced to turn her wages and property over to Rucki, and unjustly removed from the lives of her children. Empowered by the legal system, Rucki continues to abuse Sandra; the power of the court has been used as a weapon against her, and the laws that should protect victims of domestic violence and their children, have been totally disregarded by Judge Knutson and the family court system.

Another example – in February 2015 Rucki called to ask a special favor from Detective Dronen, who then was was investigating the disappearance of the runaway Rucki girls. Rucki’s call did not offer anything to help locate his daughters but, instead, he asked Dronen to help collect $$ child support $$. Officer Jim Dronen reports, “On 2/20/15, I spoke with David Rucki. He advised me at the time that Sandra was behind several thousand dollars on her child support payments. I spoke with Katie Backstrom and James Donehower at Dakota County to see if they could provide me with any further information. I was advised that they could not release any specific information to me regarding the matter.” It is beyond the duties of a police officer to get personally involved with a child support matter.

Dronnen is extending special favors to Rucki, just as he did when dismissing an OFP against Rucki (2011). Minnesota Tough On Crime But Silent on Abuse

It also concerning that the Rucki children reported abuse to the Lakeville police on multiple occasions and those allegations were either dismissed or ignored – yet Dronen goes out of his way to help Rucki collect child support. The privileges extended to Rucki come at the expense of his own children. 

This is a man who has abused his ex-wife and children, and continues to financially prey on the public. Why is Dakota County, and the State of Minnesota protecting David Rucki?

 

A Compilation:

 

July 2011- Lakeville Hockey Scandal – After controversy and public outcry regarding misuse of LHA funds and other mismanagement, David Rucki, then President, resigned from the Lakeville Hockey Association (LHA). Rucki’s sidekick, Toney Canney, and his wife, Joni Canney, also stepped down from the Board. Rucki personally selected the Canneys to serve on the Board – Tony served as the VP of Administration and Joni as the Tournament Director. Rucki also created a position for John “Gus” Barger, who was removed after allegations of misconduct and financial impropriety. Gus is Rucki’s drinking buddy.

Source: 2011 Lakeville Hockey Scandals Lands David Rucki in the Penalty Box

 

2011 – Masterminded a “Paper Divorce” scam to take all of the proceeds of a family trust, and proceeds from her father’s life insurance policy, belonging to ex-wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki (this is non-marital property). During divorce proceedings, Rucki appeared in front of Judge David L Knutson and admitted that he was pursuing divorce to commit a financial fraud. Judge Knutson ignored that a crime was being committed in his own courtroom and systematically began to punish the victim of David’s schemes – ex wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

Money obtained in the “Paper Divorce” scam was funneled into real estate and business transactions with Rucki Trucking and T.L. Rucki Trucking. Rucki claims the businesses are not making any money, and then flushes additional sources of money, and/or conducts wire transfers, to infuse the business with additional cash reserves. The cash quickly disappears, which is to Rucki’s benefit because the money can not be traced, and it gives him the appearance of looking impoverished. Rucki gets away with this scheme because he is writing his own books, issuing his own paychecks, and has been enabled by Dakota County and the State of Minnesota, who refuse to investigate. Rucki admits to this behavior under oath, in various statements made in court. Why does Rucki need to disguise the origins of the profits he is making in Rucki Trucking and T.L. Rucki Trucking? And why does Dakota County and the State of Minnesota refuse to make Rucki comply with laws that require proof and income verification when applying for public assistance? Public assistance given to Rucki is being used to support his schemes, with Dakota County and the State of Minnesota becoming complicit because of their failure to hold Rucki accountable.

The way Rucki projects his problems onto ex-wife Sandra (and by extension her attorney or anyone he views as a ‘supporter’) is no different than his business schemes. — Rucki is blaming Sandra for his own actions to avoid responsibility. By portraying Sandra in a bad light, and generating attention towards her, he is able to disguise his own actions and behaviors as an abuser. For example, Rucki falsely accuses Sandra of financially wiping him out during the divorce. This is projection – abusers blame the victim for their own actions. p. 43 “Petitioner (Sandra) testified that she did not know what Respondent was talking about when he referred to an ‘in paper only’ divorce.” (Findings of Fact, Order Dated 9/21/2011, Judge Knutson). 

Speaking about the “Paper Divorce”Rucki said in court, August 2011, “..it (the divorce) wasn’t meant as a finality deal, it was just to get the business going again as a couple. I didn’t see the end coming, I didn’t think that was the end. That was the end to her, it wasn’t to me, so for her (Sandra) to say that we didn’t ever have a conversation, it was just to get the business up and rolling so we can generate income again.” That Rucki says “I didn’t see the end coming” while he ruthlessly exploits his ex-wife shows just how dangerous he is; not only for his abusive behavior but also for his total lack of conscience.

Source: David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

 

2015 – Manipulating Detective Dronen or Something More?

Detective Dronen. Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com, sunthisweek

While his teen daughters were still missing, Rucki went to the Lakeville police department to confide in Detective Dronen about his money problems. David’s obsessive interest in financially devastating his ex-wife overrides even the welfare of his own children. 

Rucki admitted to Dronen that he was initiating lawsuits in order to seize money from Sandra’s portion of the family trust. According to the police report, “On 5/28/15, a hearing occurred in Hennepin County regarding funds from a Grazzini business that were to be distributed to the Grazzini children, including Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. David Rucki made me aware of the court proceedings and advised me that he and Lisa Elliott were attempting to get the funds to be paid to Sandra diverted to (unclear) er debts he and his parents incurred. He also advised me that Sandra’s share of the funds was approx $500,000. According to the information they had at the time, Sandra was to be representing herself at the hearing. Sandra failed to appear for the hearing, and David and his parents were awarded funds. A few days after the hearing, Michelle MacDonald filed an appeal of the decision on behalf of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.”

At the time of this report, the runaway Rucki Girls, had been missing for two years. Rucki has portrayed himself as a distraught father who could barely function while the Girls were missing, why then did he waste valuable police time and resources by providing this information that is totally worthless to the investigation? What does this information offer the police to help find the missing Girls?

Rucki’s reports to police that Sandra does not pay child support, and that he is instigating a lawsuit against her family trust may be just another one of his scams. It is well-known that Rucki used funds from the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, and received support from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to pay for the costs of ‘reunification therapy’ for the runaway Rucki girls. Additional expenses covered included transportation, a security guard to escort the Girls to the reunification center, and a vacation following. Rucki is selling these sob stories in order to get organizations to provide financial support when clearly, he does not need it. Rucki can then hide behind the reputation of these organizations and their work, to hide the real cause on why the Girls ran away – abuse. This is the same pattern that Rucki uses when projecting his problems onto Sandra, and again follows a similar pattern of behavior in his questionable business practices.

Note: Sandra did not “fail to appear”, she was not notified about the hearing, and had no knowledge that it was taking place.

Attorney Lisa Elliot. Source: redherringalert.wordpress.com

2013 – Mortgage Fraud Allegations, Ireland Place. Rucki was accused of laundering money through real estate transactions. Other allegations include: Mortgage stacking, Title washing and Foreclosure fraud. Others accused involved: Robert Shingledecker, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Attorney Lisa Elliott, Jacob Sellers, NJD Properties, LLC and Danmark Properties, LLC.

According to the complaint, “David Rucki and his attorney Lisa Elliot represented the estate in the foreclosure action. In 2012 and 2013 the defendants are alleged to have illegally washed the title of 19675 Ireland Place property of the original mortgage to make a new dollar mortgage obtained in the name of the above identified individuals and companies.  Proceeds of the stacked mortgage flowed into accounts controlled by David Rucki and other numerous parties, leads back to David Rucki and his attorney Lisa Elliot. This property is and has been in foreclosure (and foreclosed on), for sale (and sold 3 different times) in sheriff’s sale (and sold through sheriff’s sale) 7 different times in the last 10 months.”

Source: Red Herring Alert Ireland Place Mortgage Fraud Allegations & Documentation

Connection to Individuals Accused of Fraud or Scams Include:

K&K Contracting – Partnered with Dave Koehnen. In 2007, Koehnen, was the owner of a trucking company, that was under federal investigation for fraud, underpaying drivers and falsifying records on road projects. “According to the warrants, investigators sought evidence of conspiracy to defraud the federal government, making false statements in connection with federally funded highway projects and mail fraud.” http://www.twincities.com/2007/08/01/dakota-county-3-trucking-firms-accused-of-fraud/ Koehnen attempted to file bankruptcy on this business but the filing was dismissed after a Court determined that he failed to pay back taxes in the amount of $235,000 with the IRS and $98,000 with the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Koehnen also has a history of traffic violations, including charges related to violating trucking regulations.

 

Kang Contracting Corp – Partenered with Nelson K. The business address is listed in Oakdale but the payroll checks list Rucki’s Farmington house as the business address. Partnering with Nelson gave Rucki access to special contracts, including the Greenline project, meant for minority business owners.

This deal is far from 50/50 and it seems Nelson is getting the short end of the stick that Rucki is throwing at him, like a dog. Nelson is using his name to front Rucki’s business, and his status as a”minority” to gain access to a contract that Rucki would not otherwise be able to bid on. On paper it appears that Nelson owns 51% of the business but in reality, it is Rucki who has been greatly enriched by this deal.

Rucki is claiming pauper status, and collecting public assistance while he has grossed millions of dollars in income, owns multiple properties and is running businesses held in the names of other people. One of those people is Nelson K – who is supposed to be the majority owner of Kang Contracting Corp but receives very little of the benefit.

Compare the lifestyle of Rucki and Nelson – Nelson lives in a twin home, that is the registered business address of Kang Contracting. Rucki lives in a large, half a million dollar home in an exclusive neighborhood in Lakeville. Rucki additionally owns 2 other properties. Rucki owns multiple vehicles, including classic cars while Nelson drives an old beater. Nelson owns a larger percentage of the company but lives a more modest lifestyle and is not on state aid while Rucki owns 49% of the company, owns 3 homes and relies on state aid. When questions were raised about Kang Contracting, Rucki moved his business into another front, with Nelson carrying the name, Mermaids Investment Group.

2014 – Tammy Jo Love (sister), Allegations Medical Assistance Fraud. No action taken.

Allegations include: Receiving medical assistance (MA) benefits for the Rucki children who do not live with her, and do not qualify for MA. Abusing her license as a chiropractor to illegally gain access to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the children’s private medical information.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/312673149/Tammy-Jo-Love-Ma-Fraud-Report-to-Dhs

 

T.L. Rucki Trucking –T.L. Rucki Trucking is another one of Rucki’s front companies. T.L. uses same trucks as Rucki Trucking, the logo is the same, with just a T.L. added. Rucki benefits from Tammy’s status as a woman and a small business owner to gain access to special government contracts.

The business address to T.L. is registered to Tammy’s townhouse, which is being used as a vacation rental and cannot be a business office since it is being occupied by renters for most of the year. https://www.vrbo.com/502993

So where is Tammy really conducting business? Why the need to hide the real office behind T.L. Rucki Trucking?

This is just the tip of the ice burg… stay tuned for updates on the #grazzinirucki case

Sept 2016 Booking Schedule for Tammy Love’s Townhouse – She Claims This Property is the Business Property of T.L. Rucking Trucking Even While it is Being Rented Out, and Cannot Be Used as an Office

 

David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

Dakota County, Minn, August 2016: Trucking contractor, David Rucki’s false statements and refusal to provide information about his finances in legal proceedings suggest an ongoing pattern of  fraud and financial abuse.

David Rucki (Fox 9)

False statements include: Rucki lied during the criminal trial of ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki when making claims that he was duped into signing a divorce settlement in 2011, claiming that he had no knowledge of what was happening. In truth, Rucki signed over a dozen documents, in front of numerous witnesses, and willingly entered into the original divorce settlement.

Rucki lied when stating that Sandra masterminded a “paper divorce” scam that stripped him of everything he owned. What did Rucki lose? He retained a multi-million dollar company and its assets, retained numerous vehicles and property and eventually won sole custody of all five children. The truth is that Sandra was forcibly separated from her children, left homeless and destitute, and stripped of her portion of the family trust (a non-marital asset) as a result of an unjust family court order. The entire proceeds of Sandra’s portion of the trust were turned over to Rucki. Rucki is also the beneficiary of his own, separate family trust; which has remained intact.

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

During the criminal trial, Rucki’s lies about the financial aspects of the divorce were repeated by Prosecuting Attorney, Kathryn M. Keena. Keena had possession of the Grazzini-Rucki family court file, and either ignored or suppressed evidence to endorse Rucki’s sob story. Rucki’s lies about the “paper divorce” were used by Keena to discredit Sandra during the criminal trial. Keena portrayed Sandra as a vindictive ex-wife who would do anything to destroy poor Rucki, including financially wipe him out. Rucki is now claiming he suffered extreme emotional distress, and that Sandra should be given the harshest penalty possible. Keena attempted to impose an aggravated sentence against Sandra but was unsuccessful because the case does not meet the legal standard for aggravating circumstances. Keena Drops Aggravated Sentence Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki/

Claims of Rucki’s victimization are not supported by fact. Court documents, and testimony from Rucki himself, reveal a much different story that what he has recently portrayed to the jury, and to the public about the “paper divorce”. Unmasked, Rucki’s claims are that of an abuser projecting his own heinous deeds onto a victim. David Rucki is a man who is willing to destroy his own family, and put his children through the pain of divorce, in order to benefit financially from a scam he alone concocted. Rucki calls this scam the “paper divorce”.

Rucki’s Sob Story: Fact or Fiction?

Public Domain: http://www.clipartkid.com

Prevailing themes in the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody dispute, and its aftermath, involve allegations of domestic violence, and financial fraud. What is lost in the court, and following media controversy is that abuse has impacted the Grazzini-Rucki family at every level, even financially.

David Rucki’s divorce sob story, and alleged financial ruin, was prominently featured in an article published by Laura Adelmann, reporter with the Sun This Week at the end of July 2016: Revealing testimony highlights Grazzini-Rucki trial  Adelmann offered “revealing testimony” from Sandra’s criminal trial, including testimony from Rucki who claimed he was victimized in divorce proceedings.

Testifying in the criminal trial, Rucki accuses Sandra of pushing for an “on paper only” divorce. However, in family court, Rucki admits the “on paper only” divorce was his idea. Rucki stated during a deposition on August 8, 2011 that a “paper divorce” was needed “to get the business going” and he “didn’t think it would be the end of his marriage” (abuse involves the exploitation of the victim). Findings from Judge Knutson (Re-Opening of the Judgement and Decree) also state that Sandra did not know about the “on paper” divorce and there was “no meeting of the minds”. In other words, Rucki conned Sandra during divorce proceedings.

Rucki lied during the criminal trial when testifying about the “paper only divorce” and assigned blame to Sandra. Rucki’s comments are significant because these false statements were used to paint Sandra as a vindictive ex-wife, which contributed to her being charged with 6 felonies. Prosecuting Attorney Keena had the Grazzini-Rucki family court file available to her, and referred to it during trial. Instead of presenting facts, Keena chose to present a lie in order to build her case and secure a win.

The Paper Divorce Scam

The “Paper Divorce” began with a mutually agreed upon divorce settlement and resulted in Rucki successfully contesting the divorce, claiming he did not read or see the documents and was tricked into signing by Sandra. At the same time as he claiming to be a victim, Rucki admits divorce had financial advantages for him, that it would benefit his business.

According to court documents, “Respondent (Rucki) alleged that the parties agreed to a ‘paper divorce’, which would allow Petitioner (Sandra) to access some funds from a trust while parties continued living as husband and wife.” Sandra’s portion of the family trust is a non-marital asset, Rucki is not entitled to it – there is not any stipulation in the trust documents that would allow Rucki to access funds as he described. Rucki not only felt entitled to the trust, but ruthlessly pursued it.

Is it plausible that David had no idea what was going on with the divorce, as he claims? Laura Adelmann reports: “Rucki also testified that he arrived home one day in 2011 to discover he was divorced, and Grazzini-Rucki called police who removed him from their Lakeville home. ‘I never went to a court proceeding or saw anything,’ David Rucki said. ‘I couldn’t figure it out.’ Adelmann also reports: “David Rucki testified he returned later that night and took photos of the divorce decree that awarded sole custody of their children to Grazzini-Rucki and severed his rights to the house, property and everything they owned.”  Rucki, a successful businessman and trucking contractor, has signed countless contracts and other legal documents throughout his career, and now is unable to understand his own divorce settlement? 

Source: Movato.com – David Rucki retained ownership of this home after the original divorce settlement. He has claimed the divorce left him with nothing – yet retained ownership of a business, and other assets.

A paper trail of court documents, and other evidence, indicate that Rucki was aware, and actively participating in the divorce proceedings that he now claims he knew nothing about. Rucki met with Sandra to discuss the terms of the divorce, he signed multiple documents and agreed to settlement on April 19, 2011. Rucki also signed a waiver of counsel and declined his right to legal representation. Dissolution was granted on May 12, 2011, Judge Wermager approved of the settlement.

Further, Rucki admits in court proceedings that he wanted the divorce to provide additional revenue for his business: “Respondent (Rucki) testified that Petitioner and Respondent had discussed getting a divorce ‘in paper only’ for financial purposes…” 

While Rucki’s story has changed numerous times about the “paper divorce”, Sandra’s has remained the same, “Petitioner (Sandra) testified that she did not know what Respondent was talking about when he referred to an ‘in paper only’ divorce.”(Findings of Fact, Order Dated 9/21/2011, Judge Knutson). Adelmann reports the same, “In court, Grazzini-Rucki denied she suggested getting a divorce on paper so she could access the trust funds.”

The only person who benefited from the “paper divorce” is Rucki. When it was no longer beneficial to be associated with this scam, he shifted the blame onto the victim, Sandra.

Adelmann reports: “The order also required David Rucki to pay $3,673 per month in child support and $10,000 per month in spousal maintenance, according to court documents. “It left me with zero,’ Rucki said. He said Grazzini-Rucki had earlier proposed they divorce ‘on paper only’  so she could access $1.5 million from a family trust.” Question – how does Rucki go from not knowing anything about the divorce, to reciting specific details that indicate he is aware of the terms of settlement? Once again, Rucki cannot keep his story straight!

Also notice that Rucki’s focus during his testimony about the “paper divorce”is on himself, and completely ignores the impact this would have on the children. In another example, taken from the August 8, 2011 deposition, Rucki says the fair way to handle the property division after the divorce is to “sell it all”. When asked where the children would live (if the house were sold), Rucki replies, “That is something we will have to figure out when the courts figure it out.” Rucki is totally unconcerned that his actions could cause the children to become homeless, and yet he portrays himself as the victim.

Rucki bankrolled his business on Sandra’s misfortune. Rucki’s own words, recorded in a transcript from August 8, 2011  “In order for me to get working again and to get a credit line back, right, was to get rid of the existing credit line that was there two hundred some – I don’t remember what the exact number is – hundred dollars, I don’t know what… She (Sandra) told me she can get the money, and I kept asking where; she never told me, and that she would pay off the credit line. Now that allows me to work and go after re-establishing getting a new credit line okay?

The kicker to this story was, she didn’t tell me that she was going to take the house (Ireland Place) that we used as collateral against the loan; so on May 12 that whole thing unraveled for me. Now she pays off, she is my godsend and paying off this terrible loan, and all of a sudden, she pulls the carpet from under me and takes the house; now I have nothing to back the loan, okay? That’s one of the problems I have with the bank right now, I have no collateralization.”. Rucki states later in the same transcript that Rucki Trucking “is almost defunct”.  Adelmann reports, “He also stated Grazzini-Rucki told him the trust has a provision that if she or other siblings were divorced and struggling financially, they could access some of its money and get some financial relief.” There is no provision in the trust documents that states what Rucki claims. Rucki was scrambling to establish another credit line, and preyed upon Sandra to do it. The same house, Ireland Place, is also connected to allegations of mortgage fraud.

Judge David L Knutson

Also concerning, is the response of the court. In the Re-Opening of the Judgement and Decree Judge Knutson found that: “Even if Respondent (Rucki) did have the opportunity to review the Judgement and Decree, Respondent (Rucki) testified that he thought parties were agreeing to a ‘paper divorce’. The mismatch between the parties’ intentions provides sufficient evidence of mistake to vacate the Judgement and Decree on these grounds alone. clearly, there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the Stipulated Judgement and Decree.” In his own words, and in front of Judge Knutson, Rucki admits he devised the “paper divorce” scam and used the courts to swindle Sandra out of her portion of the family trust. Rucki’s “intention” clearly involved fraud, and manipulaton. Judge Knutson ignores that a criminal act is taking place right under his nose, and then extends preferential treatment towards Rucki. The result has been disastrous for Sandra, the children, and now even the public is at risk. The term “the Rucki Divorce” is now being used to describe the legal precedent this case has created. 

Aftermath

Rucki is expected to make a victim impact statement at Sandra’s sentencing on September 21st – his words will weigh heavily on the sentence imposed against Sandra. Prosecuting Attorney Keena has already attempted to give Sandra an aggravated sentence, imposing a harsh penalty because, she claims, Rucki has suffered so much. Will society be safer with Sandra in prison? Or does the true danger exist in a court system that is willing to put an abuse victim, who sought to protect her children, in jail in order to protect a dangerous abuser?

Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Hearing Raises Concerns of Fraud, Abuse of Discretion

An August 11^th 2016 child support hearing in Dakota County regarding David Rucki and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, played out with the antics of a circus side show, freakishly contorting law and issuing orders that defy justice.

The hearing was presided by Magistrate Maria K. Pastoor (a magistrate is appointed in cases where the obligee is receiving public assistance). Magistrate Pastoor issued a temporary order for child support and continued the case to hold an evidentiary hearing, just 5 days before Sandra’s sentencing on criminal charges, to determine child support. How can you issue a child support order days before a person may be sentenced to prison? According to Minnesota law, if the court determines that a person has no income and completely lacks the ability to earn income, then the minimum support does not apply and child support may not be ordered. Also, minimum support orders do not apply to an obligor who is incarcerated, unless they have income and assets to pay support. Sandra has neither income or assets. It is unprecedented that Magistrate Pastoor would issue a child support order under these circumstances. The amount of money and resources Dakota County has expended on pursuing Sandra for child support, has far exceeded any benefit it can hope to gain.

Another bizarre aspect of this child support case is the restrictions Magistrate Pastoor put on attorney, Michelle MacDonald, severely limiting her ability to access and review financial information about David Rucki. Ms. MacDonald has filed several discovery requests, and contempt motions against Rucki. Rucki continues to obstruct child support proceedings by refusing to comply with court orders and provide financial information. Another ploy Rucki uses is filing frivolous motions against Sandra, and waging false accusations without evidence to back up his outlandish claims. Dakota County refuses to hold him accountable, contempt orders are always dismissed.

Millionaire David Rucki now claims to be living in the lowest levels of poverty, and is receiving public assistance without ever proving a need for it.

One Sided Evidentiary Hearing

In order to establish child support the Court has to determine the income of BOTH parents. Under Minnesota law, both parents must file a financial affidavit, and disclose all sources of gross income for purposes of child support. Sandra has complied. David Rucki is refusing to cooperate and is actively hiding income and assets. Rucki is also refusing to comply with discovery requests. Dakota County is well aware that he has refused to provide information, but has done nothing to hold him accountable.

Now, Magistrate Pastoor has issued an order severely limiting the ability of Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, to review and access financial information about Rucki.  Pastoor’s bizarre order states that Ms. MacDonald may view Rucki’s recent filing and tax return only under the watch of a sheriff’s deputy at the Dakota County Service Center. Ms. MacDonald can not have any electronics in her possession when viewing the information (is she going to be searched? patted down?). Ms. MacDonald is not allowed to have copies of the actual documents but can take handwritten notes (how does that comply with evidentiary standards?). She may only view the information at a time “acceptable to court administration”. There are ways to protect the confidentiality of parties but what Magistrate Pastoor is imposing is oppressive, and goes above and beyond standard court confidentiality policies.

A fair and impartial evidentiary hearing can not be one sided – each party should be treated the same by the Court, and each held to the same set of rules and practices. Let’s be clear – this is a child support case, NOT a national security issue. The order does not indicate any justification for such drastic measures. This is clearly an abuse of discretion.

Rucki: From Riches to Rags

Pic posted by David Rucki, Facebook April 2016, with a statement about missing daughters.

Without providing any proof of income or assets. millionaire David Rucki now claims he is desperately poor, that the children are starving and struggling, and he requires public assistance in order to survive. According to court records, “The Father (Rucki) receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.” Rucki has also received assistance from the Wetterling Foundation in obtaining “reunification” therapy in California for his runaway teenage daughters, with a Disney vacation thrown in.

However, the court record also contains evidence that Rucki had substantial income, had ownership in several Minnesota businesses, owns or has possession of, multiple vehicles and has at least 3 real estate properties (two that have recently been remodeled). Even if Rucki refuses to comply with discovery, and even if Rucki refuses to provide the Court with documentation, his income could be imputed for child support purposes. When a Court, and for that matter Dakota County should also be considering this information for eligibility purposes, estimates a party’s income, it can consider a broad range of information – including lifestyle, ability to maintain current expenses, cash flow and other concrete resources (including vehicles). Also, a support order does not have to be based on income alone but can also consider resources, property and business interests.

According to public records, “impoverished” Rucki owns two separate homes in Minnesota, and an additional Disney vacation property in Florida. Rucki owns multiple vehicles, including classic cars. Rucki owns assets, trucks, and equipment related to his trucking business. In addition, Rucki is able to afford expensive legal counsel, and has retained at least two separate law firms to represent his interests.

David Rucki driving his classic Cadillac – used to stalk and harass Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Consider This:

A prior real estate listing boasts about Rucki’s home in Farmington – recently updated, cherry cabinets, tiled floors, 5 bedrooms and 3 baths, and a two car garage. The property also includes an impressive 65 x 45 heated “shed” that towers over the home. The “shed” includes heat, hot and cold water plumbing, and has an expensive trailer parked out in front. According to public tax statement records, the value of the property is listed at $222,000 with property taxes of $3,315 a year.

http://www.movoto.com/lakeville-mn/17549-flagstaff-ave-lakeville-mn-55024-651_4573184/

Rucki’s property in Farmington (movoto.com)

Rucki also owns a home in an upscale neighborhood in Lakeville – this home includes 5 bedrooms, 4 baths, recent updates, hickory floors and stainless appliances. Total lot size is 22,477 square feet. A recent photo of the home, taken by a satellite map, shows 3 vehicles parked in garage. According to property tax records, the current value of the home is $479,000 with $6,492 in propety taxes.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19675-Ireland-Pl-Lakeville-MN-55044/1666608_zpid/

Rucki’s Lakeville property (Zillow.com)

A previous article on Red Herring Alert offers information and documentation alleging that Rucki was involved in mortgage fraud and title washing in a scheme involving the Lakeville home: MORTGAGE FRAUD? Ireland Place (Red Herring Alert)

In addition, Rucki has been enriched by court orders, issued by Judge David Knutson, that seized Sandra’s portion of her father’s life insurance, and seized all the assets in a family company that belonged to Sandra, and placed millions of dollars right into Rucki’s pocket. Sandra received zero funds from proceeds that rightfully belonged to her. What Rucki did with the proceeds is unclear; the funds have been excluded from child support calculations due to the order of Judge Knutson. Why wouldn’t this be considered income when determining child support? Because Judge Knutson said so!

Dakota County, and its collusive network of courts and agencies, operates like a hall of mirrors in a circus side show, distorting facts, and twisting law until the truth is barely recognizable.

Judge David L Knutson

Keep on Truckin’

David Rucki made millions working in the trucking industry. He is the sole owner of Rucki Enterprises and Rucki Trucking, and also is a partner in local companies Kang Contracting Corp. (uses Rucki’s Farmington address) and K&K Contracting.

Dave Koehnen, Rucki’s partner in K&K Contracting, has an interesting past. In 2007, Koehnen, was the owner of a trucking company, that was under federal investigation for fraud, underpaying drivers and falsifying records on road projects. “According to the warrants, investigators sought evidence of conspiracy to defraud the federal government, making false statements in connection with federally funded highway projects and mail fraud.” http://www.twincities.com/2007/08/01/dakota-county-3-trucking-firms-accused-of-fraud/ Koehnen attempted to file bankruptcy on this business but the filing was dismissed after a Court determined that he failed to pay back taxes in the amount of $235,000 with the IRS and $98,000 with the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Koehnen also has a history of traffic violations, including charges related to violating trucking regulations.

This is not to say that Rucki is responsible for Koehnen’s actions. However, Rucki’s business partnership in K&K Contracting, in combination with failure to disclose income, failure to disclose tax returns, and now reporting that he lives at the poverty level without providing any evidence to support those claims should raise concerns because of the pattern that is emerging.

As for Kang Contracting Corp, one of the addresses it uses is Rucki’s house in Farmington. Kang Contracting Corp received a special contract with Metropolitan Council to help build the “green line” transit train, qualifying as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (51% minority owned business, must be a small business with income guidelines to qualify). The Green Line is an expansive transit project underway in the Twin Cities, with $626 million dollars issued in total contract values. Rucki is a partner in one of 135 DBEs at work on the Green Line, a golden opportunity. How could he be losing money to the point he is impoverished and needing public assistance to survive when awarded such a valuable contract? Metro Council 2014 – Central Corridor Green Line Workforce Story

 Recently, sister Tammy Jo Love, owner of Deephaven Chiropractic, has joined the trucking business, establishing TL Rucki Trucking. TL Rucki Trucking is registered to a home in Eden Prairie, which Tammy uses as a vacation rental. If you look carefully at the logo for TL Rucki Trucking you will see it is the exact same logo used for Rucki Trucking with just a “TL” added to it. TL Rucki Trucking has entered a similar program as Kang Contracting Corp, qualifying for assistance with the City of St. Paul Vender Outreach Program aimed at helping woman-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. Eligible businesses are certified and then allowed to bid on city funded projects, which are set aside for these specially qualified businesses, allowing exclusive access to bids and projects. How can Rucki be losing money to the point he is living in poverty when his own sister, who has no experience working in the trucking industry, started her own business using the family name, and is now a successful business woman? Or, if Rucki is so destitute that he needs public assistance in order to support his family, why doesn’t he just ask his sister for a job at TL Rucki Trucking?

Yet no one in the Dakota County family court or child support proceedings is asking questions, just the opposite, efforts to raise concerns and present information are being suppressed not only in the court system but also within the County Attorney’s office as well.

 

James Donehower Admits: Dakota County Gave Public Assistance to Rucki Without Asking for Income Verification

County Attorney James Donehower has now admitted that Dakota County has NO financial records of any kind for David Rucki, they simply extended him public assistance. How is this possible? Nobody knows! It’s a slight of handle trick fit for a circus.

Public assistance fraud happens when a recipient takes benefits they are not entitled to. The biggest red flag for public assistance fraud is failure to report income. Another form of fraud is under reporting income to meet eligibility requirements. Fraud also includes: failure to report property or assets, lying about where you live, and falsifying information on an application.

Donehower is basically saying that Rucki bypassed federal and state laws, and was just given public assistance with no questions asked, and no documentation required. When applying for public assistance, enrollees must provide verification of income (current paystubs, tax returns, verification of employment, etc), provide verification of assets (value of vehicles, bank accounts, property, stocks/bonds etc) and to complete an interview with a caseworker. Recipients are also required to get a job or comply with an employment plan. Failure to do so may result in sanctions or loss of benefits. According to Donehower, NONE of that is happening with David Rucki.

The special treatment Rucki is being afforded by Dakota County is unheard of. Common sense would question why a man with 3 homes, owns multiple vehicles, has a previous earning potential of millions of dollars would suddenly, and without any proof of need, require public assistance. Yet Dakota County is not asking any questions, they are simply opening their pocketbooks. If Rucki can not demonstrate a need for public assistance, and comply with the rules of eligibility, he should not be receiving benefits.

Public Domain: pixaby.com

In the Grazzini-Rucki case, the courts of Dakota County have operated like a 3 ring circus involving criminal, family and child support proceedings – all have allowed abuse and chaos to continue in the lives of Sandra and the children. The facts, evidence, and information being suppressed and ignored by Dakota County is the information that we should be looking into because the vast injustices happening in this case undermine the legal system for everyone, and create a very real risk of harm for any family who may encounter the system.