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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Source: More Unedited 20/20 Footage

LISTEN HERE: Samantha and Gianna Rucki describe abuse, mistreatment by family court in their own words

 

(Repost) Inverting Reality – Red Herring Alert

Inverting Reality – “Red Herring Alert”

Posted on 10/29/2017 by Dede Evavold

Who is Michael Bernard Brodkorb?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with additions from Red Herring Alert
Michael Brodkorb is (WAS) a Minnesota Republican activist, a former deputy chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, former communications director for the Republican caucus in the Minnesota Senate, under Senator Minority Leader David Senjem and later to Amy Koch when she was the majority leader of the state senate, and the creator of the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed In his role as an aide to Senjem and Koch, he is credited with helping to engineer the Republican takeover of the state senate in 2010. He and Koch were described as “the two most powerful people in the Minnesota Senate.” 

Mike Parry leg.state.mn.us

Brodkorb served as deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party from 2009 to 2011, when he resigned to work for the congressional campaign of Minnesota state senator Mike Parry. Brodkorb abruptly resigned both from his position in the Senate and his position with the Parry campaign in December 2011.

Weeks later, Koch resigned her post as Majority Leader after admitting an “inappropriate relationship” with a male staffer. Brodkorb was fired the next day. MINNESOTA DEMAGOGUES EXPOSED: SENIOR GOP STRATEGIST AND SENATOR COMMIT ADULTERY?

Michael Brodkorb domestic dispute: Wife called 911 because “the level of anger in Michael’s voice scared both her and their three children.

The fall of Michael Brodkorb

Amy Koch Affair: Michael Brodkorb, Fired Minnesota GOP Staffer, Threatens To Expose More Affairs

Cal Ludeman MN Legislative Reference Library

Brodkorb announced his intention to file litigation against the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Senate and Secretary of the Senate Cal Ludeman over his termination from the Minnesota Senate. Lawyers representing Brodkorb have announced additional claims against the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Senate and Ludeman over allegations that Ludeman disclosed private unemployment data about Brodkorb in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio. Brodkorb’s attorneys also announced plans to sue for defamation per se over statements Ludeman made in a press release where he accused Brodkorb of attempting to “extort payment from the Senate.”

On May 25, 2012, the Minnesota Senate released legal bills showing they had spent $46,150 to the first 3 months of 2012 to prepare a defense to Brodkorb’s suit. An analysis of the bill by the Associated Press showed the bulk of the $46,150 owed was due to attorneys retained by the Minnesota Senate repeatedly meeting with Ludeman.

On June 19, 2012, the Minnesota Senate announced additional legal bills in the amount of $38,533, bringing the total legal costs incurred by the Minnesota Senate due to the termination of Brodkorb to almost $85,000 since the end of the May 2012. (Click to view)→ Brodkorb, Minn. Senate settle lawsuit for $30,000

Fired Senate staffer Michael Brodkorb tells of ‘palace coup’                                         

On January 23, 2013, Brodkorb was injured in a single-car crash on Interstate 35E when his vehicle hit a concrete wall. He pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was ordered to pay a $500 fine.(Click to view) → Brodkorb DUI   

Michael Brodkorb talks scandal, lawsuit, and new leases on life: The City Pages interview

Amy Koch MN Legislative Reference Library

Amy Koch, former state Senate leader, breaks silence about her downfall

The Return of Amy Koch?

Michael Brodkorb says he was victim of a plot against Sen. Amy Koch. I get it, I was Michelle MacDonald’s campaign manager when she ran for MN Supreme Court in 2014 and learned the dirty world of politics in a baptism by fire! One would think however, that you wouldn’t pull the same dirty tricks on other victims of the establishment but I guess when you’ve sold your soul, compassion isn’t very high on the list.

For those of you that aren’t regular readers, let me explain Michael Brodkorb’s role in my Case No.19HA-CR-15-4227 which resulted in 6 felony convictions for one alleged “crime” of parental deprivation. (Not kidnapping or abduction which is what the media would have you believe).

Also, there is an affirmative defense for parental deprivation, but when evidence is withheld and suppressed, the defense is useless.   609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS
Subd. 2. Defenses. It is an affirmative defense if a person charged under subdivision 1 proves that: (1) the person reasonably believed the action taken was necessary to protect the child from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm.

Michael Brodkorb was a blogger for the Star Tribune from April 2014 through May 2016. He flipped from a republican to a democratic mouthpiece for the fake “less liberal” Star Tribune. Brodkorb became obsessed with demonizing and discrediting Michelle MacDonald when she ran for Supreme Court in 2014 against incumbent David Lillehaug (appointed by Governor Dayton). She won the Republican Party’s endorsement but narrowly lost to Lillehaug. The Star Tribune reported that her selection became an embarrassment when MacDonald’s contentious 2013 arrest on suspicion of drunken driving came to light. Never mind the forensic facts of the case:

Michelle MacDonald

Michelle’s case was a traffic stop, and more accurately an unlawful pullover.  Michelle did not have any alcohol on the night she was stopped without probable cause.

1. After dialogue with the officer about the reason for the stop, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or perform a field sobriety test.
2. She asked to see a judge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 169.91 because it was obvious this officer was using questionable measures to fill his quota and was clearly abusing his power and authority. Any citizen can invoke this statute however, as can be seen from this incident, the system does not take kindly to exposing those who are not playing by the rules.
3. Michelle was held and released from the Rosemount Police Station with NO CHARGES filed against her.
4. On her own initiative, she went directly to a hospital for a drug and alcohol blood test to put to rest any questions about this incident. The tests came back zero alcohol and zero drugs. 
5. Michelle filed an employee complaint against the Police Officer who unlawfully pulled her over.
6. In response, she received a Citation in the mail with five criminal charges against her including charges for driving under the influence.

The Result: Jury convicts Michelle MacDonald of test refusal and resisting arrest.

MacDonald also filed a complaint against the GOP and several party leaders. She alleges the party threatened her and spread false information about her campaign in an effort to get her to exit the race. She said the party was in violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. Shocker, the complaint was dismissed by a judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Oh, and by the way, Attorney Michelle MacDonald filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Judge David Knutson in Dakota County, That was shortly before the media suddenly took an interest in the case I was involved in and after she applied for an opening in the MN Supreme Court. MacDonald was the pro bono attorney for the mother in the companion case and filed the suit on her behalf. Judges however, have unlimited immunity from civil prosecution and the case was dismissed. MacDonald was also arrested during the custody trial that was presided over by Judge Knutson for taking a picture during a break. The unyielding attacks against MacDonald continue to this day.

Michael Brodkorb became the main “reporter” in our cases after we were charged and thus began the relentless harassment and stalking in the name of “journalism”.

In September 2015, Michael Brodkorb surreptitiously recorded a conversation he had with me as a Star Tribune reporter and had it turned over to the Lakeville PD. This was prior to my charges in November 2015.

 Excerpt from Evavold Audio

Michael Brodkorb: No, let me just say. I knew David Knutson when he was a state senator, the last time I saw Knutson was, I think in 2007 when Pawlenty was inaugurated for his second term. So that’s the last time I’ve ever seen him that I remember. I have tried repeatedly to interview him, to speak with him, about this case. The person that I’ve probably tried to interview the most, has been David Knutson and anyone affiliated with the court system. I’ve gone down to the court, I’ve called him and I’ve done everything I could to try to get him to speak on the record. I’ve spoken with his clerk and I’ve spoken with everyone that I could possibly think of to try to get him to speak. There is no way and I believe this, if someone reviews the matters involved in this case and doesn’t immediately come to the conclusion that there are problems in the family court system, they are purposely trying for there not to be a problem with the court system, because a blind person could see that.

(I know you’re reading this Mr. Brodkorb so, I think you may want to reconsider your pervasive defamatory posts you are writing about me and refer back to 34′:50″ into the audio that was provided to Lakeville PD).

Image Courtesy of Sira Anamwong freedigitalphotos.net

At any rate, it’s around that time that Brodkorb became a pen for hire to harass and intimidate witnesses, interfere with the legal process and lie with impunity during our trials. Michael Brodkorb currently has a blog that is now entirely dedicated to demonizing and discrediting me to change the narrative in this case and shift the focus away from the true facts. He also added Allison Mann as a contributing author. Who is Allison Mann? Mann is a paralegal with Elliott Law Office and lives in Lakeville, Minnesota. Elliott Law Offices provides legal services to the father involved in this case, but Brodkorb states. “Elliott Law Office is not affiliated with Missing in Minnesota.” Okay, and I’ve got prime swampland to sell you! Also, Allison Mann has been the photographer of the numerous photos taken prior to my false court hearings on my false charges.

For those of you that are new to this site, I was served with a harassment restraining order (HRO), 3 charges for violating the order and a probation violation for allegedly “referencing the family” involved in my case. Protecting reputation is not a government interest and preventing blogging is not a government interest. Suppressing speech rarely is justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct, and in any event the justification “must be far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms” and supported by “empirical evidence” Barnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514. 530-32, 121 S.Ct 1753, 1763-64, 149 L Ed 2d 787 (2001) (citing U.S. v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454, 475 (1995))

The malicious HRO is legally meritless and in actuality, a false police report was filed against me. §609.505 Falsely reporting a Crime Subdivision 1. False reporting. Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a crime has been committed or otherwise provides information to an on-duty peace officer, knowing that the person is a peace officer, regarding the conduct of others, knowing that it is false and intending that the officer shall act in reliance upon it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. When you’re above the law however, it just doesn’t matter!

False claims of an immediate and present danger were also made to obtain an ex-parte HRO..Clearly, this is just a retaliatory SLAPP suit in disguise of false criminal conduct with the intent to intimidate, censor, disparage, burden, and punish me for exercising my free speech right to discuss my case and defend myself against the slanderous information being written about me.  I get that the overall goal is to silence any further public debate about the corruption that took place in my false criminal case as well as the false companion criminal cases.

As I’ve posted before, SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” It refers to a lawsuit filed in retaliation for speaking out on a public issue or controversy. You might be “SLAPPed” for actions such as posting a blog entry, posting a comment on another person’s blog, writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper, testifying before the legislature, reporting official misconduct, or circulating a petition. Often, SLAPPs are brought by corporations, developers, or government officials against individuals or community organizations that oppose their actions.

What’s amazing is that Michael Brodkotb was served with a restraining order by a co-defendant during these trials due to real repeated, unwanted and intrusive stalking behaviors (i.e. following and laying in wait to take photos, posting information and spreading false information on the internet to incite others against her).

This is a comment submitted by Pat Terry on MinnPost regarding the HRO against Brodkorb:  “Until there has been a full contested hearing on the matter, this is a non-story and to suggest that Brodkorb’s actions were somehow inappropriate based on an ex-parte hearing involving someone who is quite literally a court-certified liar through her felony conviction, is really unfair.”

The HRO was dismissed but Brodkorb makes the statement, “The chilling effect is that if someone doesn’t like coverage,” he said, “they could go to a courthouse and file what I believe to be a fraudulent document with fictitious information to game the system.”

“I can’t police the Internet. I’m not responsible for what – how people react rawly and aggressively to someone who has been convicted of six counts of deprivation of parental rights. And I’m very responsible in what I write in my content that I’ve written. Sandra has attempted to hold me accountable for other type of activity that appears on the Internet that I that I have no responsibility to police or address. I have a responsibility to watch what I say and how I communicate. But, and make sure it is done in an truthful honest way. And I’ve done so in the entirety in this case. … It’s a classic case of someone crying “Wolf!” Of Chicken Little the sky is falling. And eventually what she becomes is not a responsible and credible critic. Or someone who can be trusted to accurately document what’s going on. … Over the course of my reporting, have people said “I don’t want to comment.”? Sure. I don’t want to comment. And I move on to the next thing. … All for someone who just wrote the stories and approached it from an investigative stand point. … There are precious resources for the court. And we just can’t be wasting their time and money.” AM950RADIO @AM950 Radio [PODCAST]@MattMcNeilShow – Sep 16

We can however keep the taxpayers on the hook by wasting the precious court resources for a personal vendetta against me but I forgot. . . I’m not given special treatment – only special punishments!

A court also dismissed a libel suit against Brodkorb and his blog in 2007 in a case that was described as “breaking new legal ground in the world of blogging”.

Judge tosses libel suit against conservative Minnesota blogger

A judge threw out a libel suit this week against one of Minnesota’s most popular conservative bloggers, issuing a ruling that put the political Web site on the same legal ground as newspapers and broadcast news outlets.

Michael Brodkorb, a political operative behind minnesotademocratsexposed.com, expressed relief at the dismissal.

“I think this goes back to what I said from the beginning, that this was a frivolous lawsuit and the court agreed with me,” he said. “I’m glad that it’s over.”

Below are some of the defamatory posts that Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann have put on their blog: This really is psychological projection at its finest!

If that were true Brodkorb, don’t you think I would have been charged with assaulting a police officer? Interesting that there isn’t any audio or video of my home invasion by the Lakeville PD! What really happened? Inquiring minds want to know don’t they?

Michael Brodkorb is nothing but a political operative consciously discrediting, demonizing, and distorting the good guys for his own financial gain. Again, the real goal is to use the minions and legal system to continue to stalk, harass and intimidate me by dragging me to court, wasting my time on frivolous and false accusations and damaging my reputation. Nothing lasts forever though and all will be revealed whether or not I’m silenced.

Just how far will Dakota County go to silence me? Only time will tell, but if you want to know how over the top the persecution is, take a look at the judges and attorneys involved in attempting to stop any true reporting on this case.

Any questions?

Letter in Support of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki: I Feel the Threat of Injustice, and Demand an Explanation…

Public Domain: goodfon.com

A letter in support of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, sent as part of the campaign initiated by J.A.M.

Learn More On How You Can Help Here,with Tips in How to Write Your Own Letter: A Call to Action: You Can Help Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Fight for Justice

Share your thoughts in the comments!

________________

Subject: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Family Court, Child Support, Criminal and Appellate Cases

Date:

Dear

I am writing to express my deep concerns with the ongoing Grazzini-Rucki case, which has exposed significant violations of state law, violations of Constitutional rights against Sandra, who has been so extremely targeted that she is now destitute and homeless. The rampant corruption in this case is mind-blowing but must not be ignored. 

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere…” As a citizen I feel this threat of injustice, and demand an explanation as to how the vindictive, vicious actions against Sandra can be justified in the name of laws that have been broken against her back? How can those entrusted to protect the welfare of children, justify actions that have directly placed the lives of the five Rucki children in danger and allowed David Rucki, the identified perpetrator of abuse to not only gain sole custody but worker to also ban a fit, loving mother from having any contact with her children… for the rest of their lives. The system continues to protect the very judges and officials who break the laws, and break families! I now this is true because there is absolutely no accountability in the Grazzini-Rucki case.. even as these court orders, and rulings, defy all logic and serve only to perpetuate injustice.

Background Grazzini-Rucki Case

For your reference, here is a brief background – the Grazzini-Rucki case began in Dakota County in 2011 when Sandra, a victim of domestic violence, sought a divorce from David Rucki, a wealthy and well connected abuser. Rucki’s lengthy criminal record, in addition to numerous protective orders filed against him, and the documentation of abuse against Sandra and her five children clearly show Rucki’s propensity to violence, and the rage he inflicted upon his family (see some of the documentation: druckipolicereports)

Sandra encountered a nightmare in family court, under the jurisdiction of Judge David L. Knutson, that resulted in her being forcibly removed from her home by police escort on September 7th, 2012, never to return. She lost her five children and all property, possessions, and tragically, her guaranteed freedoms as an American citizen. As a result of proceedings, Sandra was court ordered into a “lifetime of servitude,” stripped of her children, her home, her employment, and her freedom—always plagued by the control of her abuser who has promised to“see her dead.”

Judge Knutson has never been held accountable for his reprehensible actions against Sandra, the Rucki children and her family law attorney, Michelle MacDonald, that have enabled the abuse to continue and punished Sandra for efforts to protect her children from physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Judge Knutson now sits on the Board of Judicial Standards, securing a seat on the organization responsible for investigating and taking action against corrupt judges like himself. Justice has been effectively denied.

Judge Knutson has recently retaliated against attorney Michelle MacDonald and sought sanctions against her, and removal of her law license, falsely accusing MacDonald of failure to properly represent her client, Sandra.. when in truth, the actions of Judge Knutson alone are responsible for the great harm done to her. During the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial, Judge Knutson instructed Sandra to leave the courtroom in the midst of  trial and then ordered Mrs. MacDonald to proceed without her client, and while handcuffed and strapped to a wheelchair. By Judge Knutson’s order, Mrs. MacDonald was held in jail for over 24 hours without ever being charged, where she was subject to abusive and humiliating treatment from Judge Knutson’s bailiffs. (One of these bailiffs was later subject to a PREA complaint from Sandra after harassing her, and taking inappropriate photos of her when she was in the emergency room, handcuffed to a hospital bed, after suffering from a fractured skull that resulted from an unexplained incident in jail).

Source: Lion News

Judge Knutson is also responsible for ignoring abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children, and using court facilities to forcefully compel the frightened children to visit their father despite tears, and pleas for help. One of the children testified that she was even called a liar after speaking out about the abuse. In order to prevent escape, Judge Knutson ordered his bailiff to guard the door so the children had no way out… under these circumstances the Rucki children were terrorized by the very court that should have worked to protect them.

The Grazzini-Rucki case reached a crisis on April 19, 2013, when Sandra’s two teen daughters ran away after the court refused to protect them from abuse. The daughters lived on a therapeutic horse ranch for 2 1/2 years, in safety. They were discovered in November 2015 and despite raising abuse allegations, the daughters were given back into the care of their abusive father, David Rucki. Rucki was on probation for a violent offense when the girls were placed back into his care.

Legal action has been brought upon Sandra for aiding in their escape with resulting felony convictions for “parental deprivation,”. Under Minnesota law, if a person has reasonable belief that a child is in danger of physical or sexual assault, or substantial emotional harm, it is not a crime to take action an effort to protect a child.Yet Judge Karen Asphaug suppressed at least 80% of the information vital to her defense in a heavy-handed abuse of judicial power that worked to manipulate the jury into finding Sandra guilty. The conditions surrounding Sandra’s trial and sentencing meet the standard for cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Sandra now lives in hiding, afraid for her safety due to the actions of a dangerous abuser bent on destroying her, and due to an out of control court system enabling him.

Sandra has also been involved in child support proceedings and despite being homeless and unemployed, has been ordered to pay Rucki – a millionaire who owns 4 homes and 9 cars – $975 per month in child support. Failure to pay this massive sum may result in Sandra being jailed. Rucki is also receiving public welfare and Dakota County has allowed him to receive assistance while admitting they exempted Rucki from the normal financial verifications all recipients are required to provide.

Under these unjust circumstances, I strongly denounce the attack upon Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s rights, and humanity, and the laws being broken to perpetrate these many abuses against her.

PLEASE RESPOND – Questions Regarding Handling of Grazzini-Rucki Case

I am asking for an explanation as to how such injustice can be excused, even when complaint and lawsuit are filed against Judge Knutson, the Guardian ad Litem, and other court officers (and quickly dismissed).

Just a few of my questions regarding this outrageous case of legal and judicial abuse:

How can you condone the continued abuse of the Rucki children perpetrated by not only their father, David Rucki, but also by the legal system? How do you respond when the system fails to protect its most vulnerable? Judge Knutson has set precedence in Dakota County that when children come forward with abuse allegations that it is acceptable, and even encouraged, to ignore and ridicule the victim.

In the face of serious allegations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, the Rucki children were forcibly “deprogrammed” and placed into experimental “reunification therapy” to force a relationship with the abusive father whom they feared. How is this in their “best interest”??

Where is the checks and balances in the judiciary? Why are so many judges allowed to hide behind immunity even in the face of clear evidence of wrongdoing? One example of many from the Grazzini-Rucki case… Judge Michael Mayer ignored the recommendations of a social worker who stated she believed the runaway Rucki sisters had been abused, and for their own protection requested they be placed in foster care with only supervised visits granted to Rucki. The teen girls were also represented by an attorney who begged to keep them in foster care for their own safety. Judge Mayer boldy stated that he knew the girls would not be happy with his decision when ordering them back into the custody of Rucki. The girls were then taken from the courtroom, under guard, and escorted onto an airplane for “reunification therapy” in a remote area of California, chosen because if the girls ran again they would have no place to go. The Rucki children have “reunited” with David Rucki but only under threats, intimidation and creation of Stockholm Syndrome. Is this the stance Minnesota supports on child abuse?

How is it permissible that Sandra, a homeless, unemployed woman with 6 felonies on her record, all facts in the record, be ordered to pay $975 per month to millionaire ex-husband, David Rucki, who is not required to provide any proof of his income when applying for and receiving welfare benefits?

How can you justify the millions of dollars spent on the Grazzini-Rucki case that has only created more chaos, and harm for Sandra and the children?

How can you justify the continued pursuit of Sandra through multiple legal actions, and the threat of jail hanging over her head, which is costing the tax payers not only huge sums of money but consuming massive amounts of resources and manpower? Sandra has no prior criminal record and is not a threat to anyone.. and yet she is being treated worse than serious offenders, even violent offenders, who have gone unpunished in comparison.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely and in full support of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki,

Name:

CC:

Brian4Justice@yahoo.com

CC:

Elizabeth Vargas-20/20 host elizabeth.a.vargas@abc.com

Sean Dooley- producer 20/20 sean.dooley@abc.com

Beth Mullen- 20.20 producer beth.a.mullen@abc.com

Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota Courts – beau.berentson@courts.state.mn.us

James Backstrom, Dakota County Prosecutor – attorney@co.dakota.mn.us,

Monica Jenson, public affairs officer for the Dakota County Prosecutor – monica.jensen@co.dakota.mn.us

Marybeth Schubert, public affair officer for Dakota County – marybeth.schubert@co.dakota.mn.us

Attorney General for Minnesota – attorney.general@ag.state.mn.us

Dave Oney, public affairs officer for the US Marshals Minnesota Court of Appeals (651) 296-2581 – dave.oney@usdoj.gov

 

 

(Nov 2015) Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns

Public Domain Image: Pixaby

(Hasting, Dakota County, Minn): Court records reveal that a Dakota County social worker, believed abuse allegations raised by S.R. and G.R.  and fought to keep them in foster care in order to protect them from their father, David Rucki.

EPC Hearing Transcript Nov 30, 2015 (See page 23 for social worker’s recommendations)

During an Emergency Protective Care (EPC) hearing held on November 30, 2015, a Dakota County social worker recommended the Rucki sisters, S.R. and G.R., remain in protective care (for placement in foster care), and that “visitation between the parent and children would remain supervised, the extent and duration of which shall be determined by Social Services”. Parent meaning David Rucki, who petitioned the court that S.R. and G.R. be returned to his care.

The social worker made these recommendation after S.R. and G.R. (p.2-8) recounted allegations of abuse, and described fear of their father, David Rucki. Grazzini-Rucki Social Services File, CPS Records

Reports from the social worker include the following statements shared by S.R. that her father is violent and that “home life was awful prior to the divorce“. Both sisters also reported that Rucki abused alcohol and was often drunk. 

“Interviewed S.R. at the foster home on 11/23/2015. S.R. went through the family history with the worker. She was 12 when her parents divorced. Home life was awful prior to the divorce. They tip-toed around dad and he was physically abusive to her mom. Dad ripped off the leg of the organ and ran after her mom. She would have bruises here and there. Dad was rough with S.R. on occasion where he would grab her a few times and shook her. He was mostly emotionally abusive…He drank a lot and was often at bars. Once when they were not living with dad (and were living with mom) there was no more tip-toeing and no more yelling. S.R. said it felt good and she felt free in her own house.” S.R. also added that although people said she was being brain washed and needed de-programming, she never felt that way. S.R. said she would run away if returned to father (David Rucki’s) care.

G.R. shared with the social worker that Rucki took her to bars and threatened to kill the family,”She reports that dad was always screaming at mom. Neighbors called their home the ‘Scream House’. She thought the home situation was normal as she did not know any different. She never had a strong relationship with her dad. He would take her to the bar after dance or hockey. She states a big weight was lifted off her shoulders after the divorce. Mom would have bruises from dad, she would never see this occur but knew it had. She has seen him shove her. She feels her dad was mentally abusive, he was always yelling and ‘it took a toll on all of us’. She states they lived a dysfunctional life.”

G.R. also stated,”Her dad would stalk the house when they were with mom. He showed anger like, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ “ G.R. said she was not being influenced by her mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. Just the opposite – she expressed feeling controlled by her father, and that she is afraid of him. G.R. also said that she will run if returned to father (David Rucki’s) care.

S.R. and G.R. told the social worker that they would not run if they were allowed to remain in foster care, and also agreed to attend school and to go to counseling.

The recommendations of the social worker were supported by both sisters, who were represented by an attorney. The attorney requested that the child protection case proceed, and that safety issues would exist if they were returned to the care of David Rucki. The attorney also argued that sending the sisters to a program out of state is not in the best interest of S.R. and G.R., because there is a risk that they could run away again. The attorney requested on behalf of S.R. and G.R. that they remain in foster care.

What teenager begs to be put in foster care? Clearly S.R. and G.R. were greatly afraid of Rucki. That they would go to such great lengths to be away from him demonstrates the panic and fear that lead them to run away on two separate occasions, going into hiding after running away for the second time on April 19, 2013.

David Rucki

It should be noted that the abuse allegations made by S.R. and G.R. have not changed in all the years of they have asked for help. The consistency of their statements shows they are credible, and not being influenced. In addition there are multiple sources of evidence that support their statements. For example, when G.R. says that her father was “stalking the house” those remarks are validated by an OFP and numerous police reports filed by mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. Video surveillance has also documented the stalking, and recorded David Rucki’s shadowy form appearing at the home Sandra and the children lived in, night after night. In another police report filed in June 2011, Rucki chased S.R. and a group of friends down the street on her birthday. The terrified teenagers ran into a neighbor’s house in fear of their safety. Rucki chased the girls into the house, and was witnessed banging on the door and yelling. Police were called on that occasion and despite Sandra’s pleas to file charges for an OFP violation, police declined stating the children are not covered by the protective order. Even if that were true, Rucki had violated the OFP by coming within 350 feet of the home, and should have been charged.

In addition, David Rucki has a long criminal history that attests to his propensity towards violence. In fact, at the time of the November 2015 hearing, Rucki was on probation for a road rage incident where he followed then brutally beat a fellow motorist, punching him the face and mouth with such force that the victim was knocked to his knees. After pounding the motorist with his fists, Rucki walked away as if nothing had happened and went into a grocery store to do some shopping.  Some of Rucki’s criminal records can be viewed here: http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2016/05/david-ruckis-greatest-hits.html

Judge Michael Mayer, who presided over the EPC hearing, ignored the recommendations of the social worker, as well as the history of abuse. Judge Mayer also ignored the requests of the S.R. and G.R., who were represented by an attorney. Instead of getting the protection and care they so desperately needed, the sisters were shipped out of state to “reunification therapy” under the escort of a security guard. In “reunification therapy” S.R. and G.R. were forced to recant abuse allegations and made to accept being under the control of Rucki, as part of their “treatment”. Judge Mayer acknowledged that the S.R. and G.R. were “angry” with him and would not happy with his ruling. What Judge Mayer could not understand is that the sisters were not angry – they were in a desperate fight for their lives, and their future.

At every level, those who were responsible to ensure the well-being of the five Rucki children (police, court appointed reunification therapist, Guardian ad Litem, judges etc) not only failed to protect them but have created an environment that allows corruption, and judicial misconduct to thrive in Dakota County, setting a dangerous precedent should other courts follow this path of lawlessness.

 

 

Note: The surveillance photos documenting the stalking, previous police reports and Rucki’s criminal history were suppressed by Judge Karen Asphaug in the criminal trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and not allowed to be submitted as evidence, or presented to the jury. Suppression of evidence made it impossible for Sandra to prove the affirmative defense she raised, and with no other choice, the jury found her guilty of 6 counts of felony deprivation of parental rights.

For more information on Sandra’s conviction, please read:  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki convicted of hiding daughters – The decision came after the judge disallowed the majority of defense evidence

 

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Sentenced After Judge Asphaug Disallows Nearly All of Defense Evidence

As reported by Michael Volpe, CDN News. Read full story at: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is sentenced in domestic case by Michael Volpe, CDN News

HASTINGS, Minnesota, September 23, 2016- “Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been sentenced to six years’ probation and an extra one hundred and eight days in jail for her role in her two daughters’ running away.

Judge Asphaug imposed the unusual sentence after disallowing nearly all of the evidence Grazzini-Rucki intended to use in support of her affirmative defense. Grazzini-Rucki argued that she hid her daughters to protect them from an unsafe environment.

Judge Karen J Asphaug

The criminal record of Grazzini-Rucki’s ex-husband, David Rucki including a bar fight, road rage incident, numerous incidents of stalking and numerous violations of orders for protection, were all disallowed.

Child Protection reports, including one made by Nico Rucki in which he claimed his father held a gun to his head, were also disallowed.…”

This article by Michael Volpe discusses the allegations of abuse raised by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children, and describes the dramatic events leading up to the disappearance of the Rucki sisters.  It also includes Sandra’s full statement, to be read by her family law attorney, after sentencing.

Volpe attempted to contact numerous sources for comment including Judge Asphaug, Beau Berentson public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, the Lakeville police, the Dakota County Prosecutor’s office, attorney Lisa Elliott and others, who did not respond.

Volpe also attempted to contact reporter Brandon Stahl to ask several questions about the case – including asking Stahl why he has declined to write about Rucki’s extensive criminal history, and declined to write about S. Rucki’s June 30, 2016 interview with police.

Volpe reports: “In that interview Samantha Rucki said she was pressured into recanting by her father, running away was her idea, and she reiterated her father was an abuser .

She recanted when called as a witness saying she ran away to get away from the divorce but Judge Asphaug refused to allow her June 30 interview into evidence at Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s trial.” In the June 30 interview with police, S. Rucki said she was pressured and “guilted” into recanting by Rucki and Tammy Jo Love.

During the criminal trial, Judge Asphaug took the unusual move to have S. Rucki testify by Skype, and out of view of the jury. David Rucki, paternal aunt Tammy Jo Love, grandmother Vicki Rucki, and attorney Lisa Elliott, were all in the room but remained out of view of the jury.  Judge Asphaug also limited the questions the Defense was allowed to ask, thereby making their defense ineffective.

Dakota County Judicial Center

 

Also Read: Explosive Police Interview Adds New Wrinkle to the Story

(2011) Witness Says: David Rucki is a Very Angry Individual Who Rages… Expresses Concern for Sandra and Children

A witness (name omitted to protect privacy) to David Rucki’s abusive and violent behavior wrote a letter in 2011 (below) to share some of his experiences, and to voice concerns for the safety of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the children.

This letter supports the concerns raised by Sandra and supports the allegations of abuse raised by the Rucki children, who report a similar pattern of abusive and threatening behavior from David.

 

The witness reports that he felt so frightened of David Rucki that he applied for, and received, a restraining order in 2009: (2011) Judge Knutson Orders Reunification Therapy with David Rucki and Children, while HRO in place

Also note that the witness  heard David verbally abusing Sandra on a cell phone call, and “He truly berated her about being a poor mother“. This behavior matches the verbal abuse heard on voicemail messages that David left to his teenage son, Nico. The voicemail messages also include comments denigrating Sandra, and criticizing her ability to care for her children. That means you have two independent statements, from two different times, describing the SAME behavior from David. Rucki Enraged: Voicemail Transcripts Reveal Threats, Emotional Abuse Against Son

The witness also says “As one who does biblical counseling, I am convinced he (David Rucki) needs anger management treatment.” In fact, David was ordered into anger management on numerous occasions.

Judge David Knutson awarded David Rucki sole custody of the 5 children in November 2013, despite a long  history of abuse, rage and anger problems present in David. Just 7 months later, in June 2014, David was so offended by a fellow motorist that he stalked a vehicle, waited until the motorist got out of his car, and brutally beat him.  David was convicted of disorderly conduct and referred to anger management again.

See Condition #4 – Anger Management

Almost a year later, in November 2015, the Rucki girls are “recovered” after running away from the abuse, and dysfunction that their father brought into their life.  The girls bravely reported the abuse, and clearly stated that they are afraid of their father, and  would prefer to remain in foster care.  And at the time, David was still on probation for the road rage conviction – which should have demonstrated that he posed a risk of harm to the children.

Yet the Courts continue dismiss the Rucki girls’ concerns, and push for reunification therapy aka reprogramming. What kind of “therapy” forces children to live with an abuser, and forces children to accept abuse without question, to just take it?

I am pointing all of these facts out to show you, the Reader, that multiple sources, across time, describe the SAME kind of abusive and violent behavior from David Rucki. Clearly he has a propensity towards violence.

REMEMBER:   Domestic Violence manifests as a re-occurring pattern of behavior to maintain power and control over a partner or children and/or other family members. The presence of fear or trauma in a partner or in children is a telltale sign that abuse has occurred in a family.

Helpguide.org: Domestic Violence and Abuse – Signs of Abuse and Abusive Relationships

Is this a case of “parental alienation”?

Think about it… David Rucki has a documented history of anger problems, rage and violent behavior with related criminal charges, and police involvement, going back at least 16 years (figuring the witness said a “decade” of living next to David)!

Why won’t the Courts listen to the Rucki children? All they are asking for is to live in a safe home, free of violence. Is that too much to ask? 

When home doesn’t feel like home anymore… (Public Domain: http://www.pd4pic.com)

Please also read Michael Volpe’s investigation into the Grazzini-Rucki case, the history of abuse, and how this case was handled by the family court system for additional information, and insight: Chaos and horror after courts step in for Rucki family by Michael Volpe, Communities Digital News