Judge Asphaug: Blogging More of a Safety Threat Than Frightening Neighbors, Intimidating Police

In yet another bizarre development of the Grazzini-Rucki case, David Rucki claims that blogging is a threat to his safety, and that of his minor children and filed for a restraining order against Dede Evavold, co-defendant in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial. It should be noted that Rucki’s petition for a harassment order (HRO) did not actually name or specify what blog had allegedly harassed or threatened him. The HRO did not provide any evidence that Evavold was responsible for owning any blog or that she had posted anything about Rucki on social media that constitutes the legal definition of harassment (per 609.748 Harassment Restraining Order).

Without proving actual harassment occurred, and in violation of Evavold’s freedom of speech, Judge Karen Asphaug granted a HRO against her that is effective for 2 years. Ex Parte HRO

Judge Karen Asphaug (Twitter)

There are numerous problems with the HRO granted … including Judge Asphaug’s prior role on a criminal case involving David Rucki, where she was instrumental in dismissing charges that involved physical threats and harassment that he committed against the neighbors. 

Another connection is that Judge Asphaug’s husband, David Warg, shares a close professional and social relationship with Judge Tim Wermager, the first judge to preside over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce. A local newspaper article covering the swearing in of Judge Wermager alludes to political alliance, and deals made on the golf course that influence the court system, and judiciary, in Dakota County. Are these forces also at play in the Grazzini-Rucki case?

Judge Asphaug Dismissed Prior Criminal Charge Against David Rucki Despite Overwhelming Evidence of Threats, Harassment

That Judge Karen Asphaug quickly issued a HRO against Dede Evavold with absolutely no evidence to support any of the claims made is a sharp contrast to the role she played in dismissing a serious charge of disorderly conduct against Rucki, that involved harassment and threats. Many of Rucki’s acts were targeted against children. The police report filed from this incident includes remarks from Rucki that suggest he knew that if criminal charges were filed, the court would rule in his favor.

On September 8, 2009, Rucki was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after threatening and harassing his neighbor and swearing at and threatening their children. Police responding to the complaint noted in their report that Rucki tried to intimidate them and referred to the neighbor as a “bitch”. Explosive Expose by Michael Volpe: Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases?

Officer Michelle Roberts writes in her report,”Suspect (Rucki) told me that he didn’t have to listen to me. I advised him that if he would not allow me to question him regarding the specifics, I would have no choice but to charge him with disorderly conduct based on their allegations.

He stated,’Go ahead, it’s their word against mine and you can’t prove anything.’

I told him I would mail him a citation for disorderly conduct and he would have the opportunity to give his side in court. He responded,’I’m not going to show up for court, this is bullshit.’  He then said,’You guys can get the fuck off my property.’ Suspect approached us two additional times, each time arguing that we couldn’t take their word over his.

In a supplemental report written by Officer Barb Maxwell, she took a complaint from the neighbor regarding Rucki’s frightening behavior towards his family. Officer Maxwell notes that when she attempted to speak to Rucki, he “..tried to intimidate me. I introduced myself and stated,’I am here because of a complaint on your dogs.’ Rucki got very close to me and said,’There is NO complaint on my dogs‘, and from that point on I was unable to say another word.”  Rucki Incident Report 9/8/2009

Public Domain Image

Judge Karen Asphaug presided over the criminal trial against Rucki and dismissed all charges under unusual circumstances. Journalist Michael Volpe has extensively investigated the Grazzini-Rucki case and writes about these charges against Rucki, and the resulting hearing: “The case came in front of Judge Karen Asphaug and on December 31, 2009 a preliminary hearing was held.

As a result of the hearing, a trial was scheduled for February 8, 2010. But, on the eve of the trial, the defense filed a motion to dismiss for “lack of probable cause.” That motion was granted without a hearing by Judge Asphaug and the case was thrown out.

This is unusual and inexplicable. A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause is supposed to be heard during the pre-trial hearing. If a trial date is set, that normally means the probable cause standard has been met. Furthermore, given the number of witnesses to the altercation, dismissing for lack of probable cause is even less appropriate.”  Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases?

That Judge Asphaug presided over this prior disorderly conduct case  against Rucki should have disqualified her from later presiding over the criminal case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold and the other 2 co-defendants. That Judge Asphaug had knowledge of an incident involving a criminal charge against Rucki, where he was accused of violent behavior, creates a conflict of interest.

Further, this incident with the neighbor should have been allowed as evidence at Sandra’s criminal trial but Judge Asphaug would not allow it in. The neighbor had also written letter to describe his experiences with Rucki,”In our near decade of living next to him I have found him to be a very angry individual rages at anyone who has contention or confronts him. It got so severe against our family that the court awarded us a restraining order in September 2009….

As police reports can verify, he has boldly cursed profanely at, and tried to intimidate Lakeville’s female animal control officer. It is logical to conclude he is capable  of more towards those more vulnerable, such as his wife and children.

Dakota County Judicial Center

Judge Asphaug’s Husband Connected to First Judge Who Presided Over Grazzini-Rucki Divorce

Judge Karen Asphaug is also married to attorney David Warg, who was once a partner in a law firm with Judge Tim Wermager. Judge Wermager was the first judge to preside over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce.

A news article on the swearing in of Tim Wermager suggests that a good ‘ole boys club exists in Dakota County. The article hints that Wermager became a judge because of his political connections. (2008) Wermager sworn in as judge

Notable excerpts from the article include:

(Judge William) Thuet, also a Hastings resident, is a former attorney from the same law firm that Wermager practiced with for many years. In his remarks, he mentioned the connection.

“What do Rex Stacy, Tom Bibus, me, and now Tim Wermager, have in common?” he asked. “We all were in law practice with Jim O’Connell. He’s the judge maker.”

…Thuet was sworn in as judge in 1983 and remembers being told to “do what is right.” He urged Wermager to do the same.

In his remarks, Wermager thanked everyone, including his law partners O’Connell and David Warg, his family, and friends.

“One of the reasons I wanted to have this ceremony here is because of the history here,” Wermager said. “This is where we all started. (Community Room, Hastings City Hall

Wermager said Dakota County is held in high regard for its judicial practices.

“Attorneys like to practice here,” he said. “They are treated fairly and with respect.”

That pattern was begun by Judges Breunig (Robert), Mansur (Martin), and Hoey (George), Wermager noted. It continues today.

In this environment of cronyism and backroom deals how could Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or an of the co-defendants in the criminal trial, including Dede Evavold, ever receive a fair trial? When justice is offered for sale, it ceases to exist as justice and instead sows the seeds of corruption, greed and abuse of power at every level of the system.

HRO: Who is Harassing Who?

Rucki’s filing of a HRO against Dede Evavold seems well timed to silence Evavold from speaking out about her case, and to make an example of her to intimidate anyone else who is posting on social media, or other news outlets, about the Grazzini-Rucki case. There is only one narrative on this case that Rucki endorses – his own.

Second, Evavold has recently filed an appeal on her conviction of felony parental deprivation charges. Evavold Response Brief: Deceptive Dakota County If Evavold’s case is overturned on appeal, she could still be subject to this HRO, which would become another way for Judge Asphaug to throw her in jail for any social media posting… As this HRO has established there doesn’t need to be evidence that Evavold did anything wrong to punish her. The basis of the HRO is quote “blog” posting with no blog named, no threatening statements listed, no acts of harassment cited,no proof Evavold posted anything that constitutes harassment or threats as defined by law. Judge Asphaug has created a situation where she can blame Evavold for any “blog” and charge her with an HRO violation; this is a clear abuse of judicial discretion.

Stay tuned as the Justice Blog continues to expose this harassment order, and other developments in the #grazzinirucki case!

Dierdre “Dede” Evavold Appeals Criminal Conviction

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

Dede Evavold

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

The appeal also argues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Judge Karen Asphaug (Twitter)

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

Tim Kinley of “Speechless Minnesota” on Grazzini-Rucki Case: “I have never, ever seen as much corruption in our courts…as I have in this case..”

Public Domain Image: http://allswalls.com. Edited by Justice Blog.

Tim Kinley, public access host of “Speechless Minnesota”, covering issues of family law reform, judicial accountability and all levels of politics in Minnesota says he was shut down from SCC Studio in White Bear Lake because of “politics” and “they didn’t want our message out there.” After 9 months, Kinley is back and stronger than ever!

During the 1st half of an episode of “Speechless” that originally aired on 3/8/2017, Kinley provides updates on the Grazzini-Rucki case.

Kinley says about the Grazzini-Rucki case,”This case, all together, not only with the civil side of the case to the criminal side of the case, is just unbelievable! I have never, ever seen as much corruption in our courts, so systemic, so obvious, so in your face, as I have in this case….this case enters into the most amount of legal issues that I’ve seen in any case, and it is so bad…”

Topics Discussed:

*Efforts to press for an investigation of the Grazzini-Rucki case in the Legislature

*Child support issues in the Grazzini-Rucki case

*Systemic judicial corruption existing at all levels of government in Minnesota and especially the judiciary, being exposed in the Grazzini-Rucki case

*Comparing judicial disciplinary actions in two similar cases in Minnesota and Nevada

“Speechless Minnesota” with Tim Kinley

Kinley says he has been petitioning the Legislature to do a case study, and go through this case “piece by piece” on the Grazzini-Rucki case “for the purpose only of understanding how a judge interprets their laws that they are writing.. and they will find out that a judge does whatever they want.”

Kinley argues that even if the law is changed a judge will continue to “do what they want” and they only remedy is increased judicial accountability.

To illustrate his point, Kinley compares the actions of Judge David L. Knutson and former Nevada judge, Conrad Hafen in two similar cases that were handled very differently in their respective states.

Judge David L. Knuston, is the family law judge appointed to the Grazzini-Rucki case. In September 2013, during the custody trial Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, was found in contempt of court, and placed in handcuffed after taking a picture in the courtroom, which she had gotten permission to take.

While MacDonald was detained, Sandra was told that court was dismissed and then left the courthouse, taking the files with her. MacDonald was then ordered to continue with trial, while still in handcuffs and strapped to a wheelchair, without her client being present, without case files and without her glasses or shoes. MacDonald was finally released after spending more than 24 hours behind bars without being charged, booked or allowed a phone call. Lawyer Allegedly Tortured For Doing Her Job

Judge Knutson was never held accountable – federal lawsuits against him are dismissed under the guise of immunity, and The Board on Judicial Standards refuses to investigate (Knutson is now a member of the Board). In fact, Judge Knutson later filed a disciplinary complaint against Michelle MacDonald, who has been charged with making a false statement against a judge! Michelle MacDonald receives ‘minimal’ discipline

Kinley compares this incident to a case from Nevada involving disciplinary action taken against former family court judge Conrad Hafen, who has been barred for life from the court bench in Nevada as punishment for a series of courtroom confrontations, including ordering a defense attorney to be handcuffed when she wouldn’t stop arguing to keep a client out of jail. Hafen is also accused, in 3-4 separate incidents, of holding litigants in contempt of court but never making a record of that. Ex-judge banned from Nevada bench for handcuffing of lawyer

 Kinley applauds the State of Nevada for “willing to expose” out of control judges, and for enforcing judicial accountability… the same cannot be said for Minnesota.

Click on the video below to watch this riveting episode of “Speechless”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastoor Inflates Income of Homeless, Destitute Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Ways YOU Can Show Support:

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

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

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

Use hashtag #grazzinirucki #riggedtrial and #evavold when posting

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

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

Original Air Date: Sunday, April 23rd

HOUR 1:

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

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

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

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

HOUR 2:

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

 

 

David Rucki Stalking Incident, July 2013 – Making Good on Threat to “Hunt” Ex-Wife “Like a Dog”

The article “What’s Fair is Fair“, previously posted on Red Herring Alert, documents an incident where David Rucki stalked ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in July 2013. Sandra continues to live in fear of Rucki, who once made a threat to her that “I will hunt you like a dog for the rest of your life.” To this day, Rucki continues to stalk and harass Sandra, and anyone associated with her, and has even gone so far as to hire a private investigator and retain an attorney in his efforts.

On July 27, 2013, police responded to a call in a suburban neighborhood regarding a suspicious vehicle and a possible stalker – David Rucki. The menacing black Cadillac roared as it passed the house, made a U-turn, and passed again. From behind the windshield, Rucki turned his hand sideways and pointed one finger, his hand formed a gun aimed straight for his ex wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

The police report indicates that Rucki had been seen on numerous occasions driving up and down a street where a friend of  Grazzini-Rucki lives; and that a police report was filed on this day because video tape footage had been taken, and could verify his presence. The still pictures of the stalking incident included in this article came from the actual video footage taken that day. The police report notes that the officer responding at the scene had viewed the video footage, and reported,”I watched the video that showed the suspect vehicle drive up and down — Street and also sitting on — Street.

David Rucki had absolutely no reason to be driving on this residential street, which in fact is located in a different city than where he lived, and would require Rucki to drive out of his way to make an appearance in a neighborhood where he did not belong. What is important to note is that David Rucki is targeting friends and supporters of Sandra in his abusive, criminal behavior – that he would go to such extreme lengths in order to gain power and control over Sandra shows how dangerous he is.

Considering the fear  Sandra had expressed, and prior protective orders filed against him, Rucki should have known to stay away. Instead he continues to pursue Sandra. A statement taken  at the scene says,Grazzini-Rucki says she was afraid of David as he had been abusive to her and their kids. She said that Rucki had also violated no contact orders in the past.“At the time of this incident, a protective order was not in place against Rucki. – However, Sandra had previously filed for, and received, a protective order that recently expired. Rucki was not deterred by any of the protective orders and continued to harass Sandra. The police officer advised Sandra of her options, including filing for a harassment restraining order, and said the police would do extra patrols in the area. None if that has seemed to stop Rucki, who is even adept at manipulating and using other people to participate in his abuse of Sandra (and even attempting to intimidate or retaliate against friends and associates of Sandra in order to hurt her).

Years later, at the criminal trial of Sandra, presided by Judge Karen Asphaug, evidence of stalking to include videos, still pictures, police reports and witness reports was offered up to support the affirmative defense she raised. Judge Asphaug suppressed the evidence of stalking, and would not allow the jury to see it… what you are reading here is some of the evidence that was kept from the jury.

What’s Fair is FairPosted on October 26, 2015 by Dede Evavold

We’ve seen and heard a lot about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. . . But what about David Rucki?

 Let’s take a looksie!

 

Name: Rucki, David Victor     DOB: 02/03/1963     Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lakeville, MN 55044 Secondary Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  Farmington, MN 55024 Age: 52  Business information Rucki Trucking (Shop) Farmington, MN 55024

Vehicle Information: 2005 Maroon Chev Suburban, (MN Lic#SPZ533); 1990 Silver Mercedes Benz SL500  Convertible coupe, (MN Lic#); 1965 Black Cadillac Coupe Convertible (MN Lic#914HRA); 1965 Dark Blue/Black Chevelle

Pictures above were taken by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s friend M.R. on July 27, 2013 outside of his then residence. M.R. filed a police report for MN Statute 609.749 STALKING.

Stalking – David Rucki

Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, “stalking” means to engage in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.

The Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) was denied. Which has become a pattern in Dakota County, Rucki seems to evade criminal charges he deserves.

NOTE:

After the denial of the HRO, David Rucki’s stalking and harassment escalated.

Available records indicate two additional police calls were made complaining that Rucki continued to drive by the residence of Sandra’s friend.  Rucki was also seen parking his vehicle on a nearby street and watching the residence.

One of the police calls was made on December 27, 2013 to say that David Rucki’s maroon truck was seen driving past the house. Rucki was yelling at witnesses to the incident and seen taking pictures. 

On May 31, 2014, a GPS tracking device was found on a vehicle belonging to M.R. There is overwhelming evidence that Rucki is responsible for purchasing the GPS tracking device and placing it on the vehicle. A police investigation into the planting of the GPS produced enough evidence to criminally charge Rucki yet, the investigation was closed without explanation – and no charges resulted.

When the GPS was purchased, an e-mail address was connected to the account with an IP address that traced back to Rucki’s home on Ireland Place.

The GPS tracking device was first activated at Rucki’s home on Ireland Place in Lakeville. The police were able to look at a spreadsheet that tracked the locations of the GPS when it was active – the first sign of activity was on December 28, 2013. The signal starts at Rucki’s residence then can be traced moving down the street, until arriving at M.R.’s residence and being placed on his own vehicle. It is no coincidence that Rucki was appearing at the residence the day before, and taking pictures.

For more info on these incidents plz see pages 79-92: druckipolicereports

SECOND – The infamous Black Cadillac pictured above is now owned by friend, Tony and Joni Canney.

The Canneys were involved in the Lakeville Hockey scandal with David Rucki, and resigned from the Board in disgrace (2011). Rear more here: 2011 Lakeville Hockey Scandals Lands David Rucki in the Penalty Box

 

Stay Tuned for More Updates!

BACK FROM THE BIG HOUSE (Repost Red Herring Alert)

 (Dakota County, Minn) An update from Dede Evavold, a victim of corruption and Judge Karen Asphaug’s vicious abuse of judicial power…

BACK FROM THE BIG HOUSE

The trial went forward despite my arguments regarding witness tampering and obstruction of justice due to illegal withholding of a portion of my evidence. Also, the evidence I did receive was not disclosed in time to afford me the opportunity to make beneficial use of it. (Received on September 1st and trial was scheduled for September 26th).

asphaug-1

Judge Asphaug also demonstrated prejudicial judicial conduct by granting the State’s motion to have substantial exonerating evidence not introduced in the trial.

 

gavel

Image courtesy of suphakit73 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net


I did not have a settlement conference and was offered a plea deal on the first day of my trial. As I’ve said numerous times before, the goal was always to have me plead guilty or be found guilty without access to all of my evidence.

After I declined the plea deal, the attitude of the prosecutor and the judge changed significantly and became quite hostile. Here’s the thing, a statement must be free and voluntary, not extracted by any sorts of threats or promises, however slight. Judge Asphaug indicated that if I lost by having a jury trial, she would have the ability to impose a harsh sentence which is exactly what happened. Plea bargaining extorts guilty pleas and the trial tax is just another way to tilt the playing field in favor of the state…”

Visit Red Herring Alert to read the full article: BACK FROM THE BIG HOUSE

 

SHOW SUPPORT!

Like, share, and repost using hashtag #grazzinirucki and #riggedtrial #dedeevavold