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 2nd 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.

Advertisements

Appellate Briefs Reveal More Shocking Behavior in Rucki Case

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

Briefs Reveal More Shocking Behavior in Rucki Case.

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

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

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Karen Asphaug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Rucki Facebook April 2016, Public Statement About Missing Daughters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

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

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

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

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Case Reaches Appellate Court

Our child support system was not intended to allow wealthy parents to go after poor parents or to allow the County to facilitate such a action. Also the System requires no showing that the children are not being supported with a home, the basic necessities of life, education, health care… what our System does basically is deprive children of the love and companionship of parents which is vital support for children” Attorney Michelle MacDonald, Oral Arguements: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Child Court Case before the Court of Appeals

(5/24/2017, Minnesota) Oral Arguements in the Child Support Appeal of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki reveal the cruelty and vindictiveness of ex-husband, David Rucki (via attorney Lisa Elliott) and Dakota County (via James Donehower), who demand nearly $1,000 a month in payment from Sandra, who is lives in unimaginable poverty and does not even have the resources needed to secure her own survival.

According to Minnesota law Statute 518A.42 (2016) Subd1a.,”It is a rebuttable presumption that a child support order should not exceed the obligor’s ability to pay….

And Subd2.,”If the court finds the obligor receives no income and completely lacks the ability to earn income, the minimum basic support amount under this subdivision does not apply.” In cases where a parent lacks ability to pay child support is put on “reserve” and no amount is due until there is a change of circumstance. Minn. Stat. 518A.42 ABILITY TO PAY; SELF-SUPPORT ADJUSTMENT

Though Sandra is currently homeless and destitute, and currently unemployed, which is well documented, she has been court ordered by Magistrate Maria K. Pastoor to pay $975 per month in child support to ex-husband, David Rucki. The amount of child support ordered is based on an imputed amount, meaning Dakota County has made up a figure they feel Sandra should pay.

The facts of the case clearly show that Sandra is struggling to survive and cannot afford to pay child support, while Rucki enjoys a luxury lifestyle and is more than able to pay for the care of the children without child support or any government aid.

Rucki’s Lakeville property (Zillow.com)

Magistrate Pastoor has taken great efforts to be placed onto the Grazzini-Rucki child support case. By “coincidence” Magistrate Pastoor shares a previous professional relationship with Judge David Knutson, who previously presided over the Grazzini-Rucki child support and divorce.

Sandra became homeless after Dakota County Judge Knutson issued an order on September 7, 2012 that forced her to vacate her home of 15 years. She was denied any due process when forced to leave all of her possessions, and forcibly separated from her five children as well. Judge Knutson told Sandra that she would be arrested and jailed if she refused to follow his orders. Judge Knutson then issued a succession of court orders that seized Sandra’s income, assets, savings and even retirement fund and handed them over to Rucki – which she has never been able to recover.

Sandra has also had to witness continued physical and mental abuse inflicted on her children by David Rucki. The children were further traumatized by a family court system that has enabled the abuse to continue and punished Sandra for trying to keep them safe. In April 2013, two of Sandra’s daughters were forced to go on the run to protect their own lives. Sandra has since been charged, and convicted, with 6 felony counts of parental deprivation for her role in assisting her daughters. The circumstances surrounding Sandra’s trial and conviction involved a multitude of illegal and unethical actions from Dakota County, and Judge Karen Asphaug. Critics have called the proceedings a “rigged trial”. It is unlikely that Sandra will be allowed to return to work as a flight attendant with 6 felony convictions on her record. She has not been working for almost two years and is considered unemployable. A spotless, 30+ year career as a flight attendant is now in ruins and with it, Sandra has been grounded with no relief in sight.

For a few months in 2016, after being released from jail and anticipating a lengthy probation, the State of Minnesota offered Sandra food support and a small amount of general assistance. Assistance was then abruptly terminated, leaving Sandra without the ability to obtain food or the ability secure the basics: soap, toothbrush, shampoo now are all “luxuries” beyond reach.

Sandra also lacks medical and dental care. She continues to suffer from the effects of a broken nose and fractured skull that happened in an incident while she was held as a prisoner at the Ramsey County Workhouse in November 2015. Sandra cannot remember what happened to her because the severity of the injury resulted in her becoming unconscious. Sandra woke up lying on the floor in a pool of blood, moaning for help. The incident has never been investigated, nor explained by the jail or by Ramsey County, it has become another of the many abuses inflicted on her. And still Sandra is breathing, and with every breath, fighting back.

This child support case is also ridiculous considering David Rucki, ex-husband, claims poverty even though he is a multi-millionaire who owns 3 houses (one home Rucki claims is a rental property so it generates income), owns several vehicles, retains all of the marital property, is the beneficiary of the Rucki family trust and was enriched after a court awarded all of his ex-wife’s financial assets to him, which he has never paid taxes on. Court records also indicate that Rucki is paying attorney’s fees in an estimated amount of $800 per hour…how can he afford this lifestyle if he is truly impoverished?

David Rucki’s property in Farmington, MN

Rucki has more than enough money and resources to care for the children on his own and does not need child support or welfare. And yet that is not enough for Rucki.. as long as Sandra is alive he will continue to retaliate against her… though he can not beat Sandra with his fists, he uses the legal system to wield a blow.

(Video published 5/28/2017 by Tim Kinley, host and producer of “Speechless Minnesota”)

 

For More Information:

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki ordered to pay $1K monthly child support 

Radio: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the Child Support Hustle with Guests Michael Volpe and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki (Marcus Echols). 5/9/2017.

 

Lion News Roars at Brodkorb – Allegations of Interference in Grazzini-Rucki Case, Manipulating Public Opinion

Michael Brodkorb, former reporter with the Star Tribune, and online commentator, gives himself credit for helping to locate the runaway Rucki girls – but does the end justify the means? Explosive new evidence from Lion News describes, and includes evidence, that Brodkorb has significantly interfered in the Grazzini-Rucki case, including direct interference while the investigation of the runaway Rucki girls was still active. Evidence also suggests that Brodkorb has a close relationship with David Rucki that has given him access to confidential information, which was then used by Brodkorb to manipulate the public opinion in Rucki’s favor. Lakeville Police Refuse To Take Criminal Complaint from Dede Evavold

4bebc-brodkorb_rucki_love_elliot_donehower_19av-fa-11-1273_012616

While working for the Star Tribune, Brodkorb says his contract ”...allowed me to write about any topic I wished…” Brodkorb initially wrote about politics then began to focus exclusively on the Grazzini-Rucki case. After being booted from The Star Tribune, Brodkorb began a blog, exclusively dedicated to the Grazzini-Rucki case. Much of Brodkorb’s comments on the blog include emotional outbursts, rambling opinions and inflammatory statements about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her attorney, Michelle MacDonald. The tone and content of this blog are one sided, and do not include or discuss any of the volumes of evidence showing the Rucki children were abused by their father. How can Brodkorb determine that the Rucki children were not abused when he is not even willing to look at the evidence that suggests abuse did occur? The public has a right to see all sides of the case but instead are being fed a narrative by Brodkorb that does not match the facts.

Lion News Raises the Following Allegations Against Michael Brodkorb:

1) Talking to a witness wanted for questioning by police BEFORE police could contact this person. Lion News offers new information proving that Brodkorb pursued contact with the witness even after he was asked to stop. Brodkorb then lied to Detective Dronen by saying he would not contact the witness – then does anyways. Did the pressure Brodkorb apply to this witness contribute to why she changed her testimony – or fuel the hate the witness now professes for Sandra?

Lori Musolf: So on Sunday this past Sunday this blogger who has been blogging the story called me. And started asking me questions. I have no idea who this guy even is.
Detective Dronen: Okay
Lori Musolf: Michael
Detective Dronen: Brodkorb?
Lori Muslof: Yes! And I refused to tell him anything. I just told him that I want nothing to do with this. I have not had anything to do with these people in a couple years. And I want absolutely nothing to do with it. And he was insistent. And I continued to tell him I want nothing to do with this. And I hung up. Okay? … 8:30/41:24 from 13001278 Loralie Musolf.mp3

Lori Musolf: Just so you know, I think this blogger is … I don’t know if you’ve talked to this blogger at all.
Detective Dronen: I have from time to time.
Lori Musolf: Okay.
Detective Dronen: I talked to him on Monday. The interesting thing is that he told me on Monday that he wasn’t going to call you.
Lori Musolf: Yes he Detective Dronen: Apparently he already had. So.
Lori Musolf: He already had. He called me Sunday. 2:54 p.m. I even have it in my notes. Yes, he had called me on Sunday. He had tried calling me I think it was on Friday and I totally avoided his phone call.

Lori Twit

Lori Musolf admits that she did talk to Brodkorb, and credits him for changing her perspective on the Grazzini-Rucki case. Which means Brodkorb influenced a witness, and affected her testimony, before she spoke to police. Lori’s testimony was used to help build a case against Grazzini-Rucki, this information suggests that her testimony may have been tampered with, and not accurate. Potential State Witness Wrote Letter to Judge Knutson – Criticizing Court’s Failure to Protect Rucki Children from Abuse

Lori has maintained contact with Brodkorb and frequently comments on his social media.

2) A close relationship exists between David Rucki and Michael Brodkorb that goes beyond professional courtesy. Recent evidence from Lion News suggests that relationship has influenced articles written by Brodkorb, who used his blog to promote Rucki’s narrative (propaganda). Brodkorb’s interference compromised both the case of the runaway Rucki girls and Sandra’s criminal case.

Brodkorb has been intensely following the Grazzini-Rucki case for over a year, and posting on social media and blogs that swing in favor of Rucki. Brodkorb does not hide his strong feelings for Rucki, in an intensely intimate passage he writes, “When I first met David, I was so overcome with emotion I had to excuse myself from our table at a restaurant in Minneapolis. I went to the restroom, splashed cold water on my face and took a moment to compose myself.

Brodkorb despises Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, evident by the wrath he writes in posts about her. In one post, Brodkorb shamelessly exploits the tragic death of Jacob Wetterling to drum up interest for his own blog, exclusively dedicated to the Grazzini-Rucki case. In an article, Brodkorb compares Rucki to Patty Wetterling, even going so far as to say that Rucki’s “unimaginable pain” when his daughters ran away and went missing for 2 years, is comparable as what Patty Wetterling has experienced at the death of her young son. Brodkorb goes on to compare Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her attorney, Michelle MacDonald, to the pedophile monster, Danny Heinrich, that murdered Jacob and molested countless other boys. How the disappearance of Jacob Wetterling helped find the Rucki sisters

Brokorb glosses over allegations of physical, emotional and psychological abuse against Rucki, and the pain the Rucki children have endured. Is David Rucki really someone you would compare to grieving mother, Patty Wetterling? In a CPS report, S. Rucki reports, “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 Mom. Dad ripped the leg off the organ and ran after Mom. She would have bruises here and there. Dad was rough with S on a few occasions and he would grab her a few times and shook her… Only when they were not with Dad (living with Mom) was there no more tip-toeing and no more yelling. S said it felt good and free in her own house.https://www.scribd.com/doc/316692570/SamiRucki

Brodkorb defends his writing saying he has “free speech” and claims protection as a “journalist”. Sandra has recently filed a harassment restraining order against Brodkorb. Brodkorb has admitted online that he intends to violate the order and may have already has because Twitter posts indicate that he was interviewed by police. Brodkorb continues to post comments and pictures about Sandra, and even has disclosed sensitive information. Brodkorb’s exploitation of both of these tragedies is horrific, and should be treated as libel – not protected as “journalism”.

Another crucial piece of evidence that demonstrates the close connection between Brodkorb and Rucki, is posted on Lion News. Brodkorb secretly recorded a conversation with Dede Evavold, friend of Sandra who is also charged in connection of the disappearance of the runaway Rucki girls. Evavold obtained a copy of the audio, and other evidence, after filing complaints against Dakota County Attorneys James Backstrom, Phil Prokopowicz, and Kathryn Keena. The audio was labelled “13001278 Evavold audio given by D. Rucki.MP3 “. Meaning Brodkorb recorded this conversation then handed it over to Rucki. What journalist reveals their sources to anyone – let alone to the subject of their investigation? What journalist hands over information they have gathered in the course of an investigation? Clearly Brodkorb has made a deal with Rucki. 

In part of the audio, Brodkorb alludes to having a previous connection to Judge David Knutson: “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…” Has Brodkorb maintained contacts in the court system? Perhaps so – Brodkorb has admitted in one article,”The contacts I had made in the political world ended up being very helpful in generating leads on the Rucki case.

Judge David L Knutson

Judge David L Knutson

Brodkorb also acknowledges there are serious problems existing in the family court system, “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.” Brodkorb goes on to say that he does not believe the Rucki girls ran away, and has a strong suspicion that Sandra has been helping them.

In her criminal trial, Sandra argued the affirmative defense – claiming her actions were taken to protect her children from imminent harm. What loving parent wouldn’t act to protect their children from abuse? This tragedy could have been avoided had Judge Knutson, and the Dakota County court and social service taken concerns of abuse seriously, and worked to protect the children – not enable the abuser.

freakydoor

3) Allegations of Witness Tampering – On June 24, 2016, Dede Evavold attempted to file a complaint with Lakeville police, accusing David Rucki and Michael Brodkorb of witness tampering in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case. Dede says officers with the Lakeville police quickly walked away and refused to take her complaint, which she documents with photographs. Officers were ordered by Deputy Chief John Kormann not to take the complaint.

The incident happened on June 12th when Dede received a letter in the mail from David Rucki, via his high buck attorney Marshall H. Tanick at Hellmuth and Johnson PLLC (how does a recipient of public assistance afford these expensive legal services??) that raised several allegations against her, which could result in criminal charges or civil damages. Dede writes, “After returning home on Sunday, June 12, 2016 I found what I consider a harassing and threatening extortion letter in my mailbox. The extortion letter was from David Rucki’s attorney Marsahll H. Tanick, Attorney at Law, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC. I had a reasonable suspicion the wild, outrageous and unsubstantiated claims contained in the harassing and threatening extortion letter were meant to intimidate me into deleting the blog, Red Herring Alert, that I shared with Susan Carpenter. I also had a reasonable suspicion that Rucki’s harassing and threatening extortion letter was designed to coerce me into changing not only my plea but to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra’s rigged case.” The same letter was sent to S.C. and Lea Dannewitz, owner of the Carver County Corruption blog. In response, Lea deleted her blog, and denied involvement with any posts written about Rucki. S.C. responded by stepping down from her role in the Red Herring Alert blog and deleting any posts connected to her. It is clear that both were frightened of Rucki, and his threats against them.

Just two days after Rucki’s attorney sent this letter, Brodkorb raised his poisoned pen and took to the internet to dish the breaking news that rocked entire State of Minnesota like an atomic bomb… “Facing potential civil litigation in Rucki case, owner deletes blog.” Really – is that news worthy? No wonder Brodkorb lost his job the Star Tribune, his obsessive interest in the Grazzini-Rucki case has caused him to lose touch with reality! What is interesting about this article is that Brodkorb gained access to the attorney letter Rucki sent out, which was not made publicly available. Brodkorb also knew details about the letter which had not been released – such as the name of the firm Rucki retained, and that “others” were sent this same letter. Brodkorb also cited portions of the letter in his article.

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Dede also questions how Brodkorb obtained this letter, “ How is it possible that former Star Tribune hack Michael Brodkorb magically & mysteriously knew that  Lea received a private harassing and threatening letter from David Rucki? How is it possible that former Star Tribune hack Michael Brodkorb magically & mysteriously knew that Lea would pick that time to delete her blog? It couldn’t be a coincidence if Star Tribune hack Michael Brodkorb is knowingly and intentionally delivering Star Tribune work product to David Rucki, could it?

What makes this letter, and subsequent blog article posted by Brodkorb, witness tampering is that threat of legal action, and the public humiliation of Lea Dannewitz, was being used to pressure Dede and other bloggers into remaining silent about the Grazzini-Rucki case. Dede felt that Rucki, and Brodkorb, were threatening her to delete the Red Herring Alert blog, and to change her testimony in the Grazzini-Rucki case. Rucki had successfully employed these bullying and coercive tactics on others – Lea is one example, his son N. Rucki another, and audio from a police interview shows the same tactics were used on runaway daughter S. Rucki to attempt to get her to change her testimony. The Lakeville police has an obligation to take Dede’s complaint, and given the evidence she has provided, as well as the history behind it – this complaint should be investigated.

The irony in all of this is that Brodkorb defends his own blog and social media posts as “journalism” and “free speech” but at the same time is gleefully reporting that the blogs of other people are being threatened with legal action, and taken down. It does not appear that Brodkorb supports free speech at all.

Brodkorb’s writing serves to protect David Rucki as well as Judge Knutson and the Dakota County court system, who has destroyed the Grazzini-Rucki family, and enabled abuse to continue. Judge Knutson and the family court has worked to cover up their illegal actions and hide the fact that abuse did occur in this family; they use press coverage to continue their lies, and to elicit public sympathy.

In turn, Brodkorb receives recognition and is able to salvage his tarnished reputation by being the reporter who broke the story, by playing the hero.

The sad ending is that Sandra and the Rucki children were once a closing, loving family who now have been forcibly separated and without contact for over 3 years. Sandra’s dream was to be a mother to a large family, and to devote her life to her children – that dream was shattered first by domestic violence and then by a corrupt family court system. The Grazzini-Rucki family has been decimated by the illegal and unjust actions of Judge Knutson, and Dakota County. The Rucki children are growing up in a home where they are potentially endangered; so much so that 4 out of 5 children have ran away from their father at least once, and threatened to run away again (the two older girls succeeding in April 2013). The Rucki children have begged to return to their mother – their pleas havebeen ignored. It is reprehensible that the courts of Dakota County would order the Rucki children into “reunification therapy” with an abusive father while, at the same time, alienating the children from the healthy parent, their primary caregiver, Sandra.  These children are growing up without their mother, a loss that can never be replaced.

Every level of the court and legal system has failed to protect the Rucki children. Their mother, Sandra, may be sent to prison for trying to protect them. She will have a felony record while the abuser goes unpunished. This is the story that should be told. Instead of reading Brodkorb’s nonsense, PLEASE read, like, re-post and share the courageous voices who speak out about abuse and family court failures. Share the articles that expose the truth about the Grazini-Rucki case, in doing so you can help reveal the evidence the court has denied, and obtain justice for the Grazzini-Rucki family.

samkiss

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is a loving mother – this is a picture of the family destroyed by Judge David L. Knutson, Dakota County

 

Pressured, Threatened S. Rucki Bravely Speaks Out Against “Horrendous” Family Court

horrendousfamilycourt2

Lakeville, Minnesota: Lion News released an emotional video excerpt of the June 30, 2016 interview between Samantha Rucki and Detective Kelli Coughlin. LION NEWS: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF SAMANTHA RUCKI CALLING DAKOTA CO. JUDGE KNUTSON A “DICK”

The shocking video begins with Samantha tearfully crying, “It never should of happened, I just want to be with my Mom.” At another point in the interview, Samantha says, “I just wanted to be with her (Sandra) and no one would let us…

Samantha was questioned about her two-year long disappearance following a family court order that temporarily granted custody to paternal aunt, Tammy Jo  Love, and placed the Rucki children within the control of abusive father, David Rucki. The Rucki children raised numerous allegations of abuse against their father and also stated that they did not feel safe in the care of Tammy Jo Love.

Samantha admits she was “guilted” by her father, David Rucki, to do an interview with police and told to “recant”.

Earlier this week, journalist Michael Volpe reported on the same interview: Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story

Volpe elaborates on the interview, offering additional details, including, “Initially, the younger Rucki told the Detective that her father attempted to threaten her ahead of the interview, “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.”

This tampering takes on extra meaning because when Samantha testified in her mother’s trial, the court took the unusual step of allowing Samantha to testify by Skype and out of the view of the jury. Her father, his sister, her grandmother, and attorney were all in the room all out of the view of the jury.

At least one child did recant his story – Nico Rucki previously disclosed physical and mental abuse from his father, has now changed his story and says it was Sandra who pressured him to make those claims. Was Nico subjected to the same treatment as Samantha had described?

Comments made in the police interview suggest that Rucki terrorized his family. Samantha states she felt “frightened”, and witnessed escalating violence in the home, “It was constantly screaming, and he (David Rucki) was getting to the point where he was starting to get physical.”

Samantha admits she ran away because she was in a “panic” and says the failures of the Dakota County Family Court -specifically  Judge David L. Knutson, Julie Friedrich (Guardian ad Litem), Dr. Gilbertson (a therapist) – contributed to her decision.

Sandra’s criminal trial was presided by Judge Karen Asphaug, who refused to allow the transcript or audio of this interview to be entered as evidence. Judge Asphaug also refused to allow a domestic violence expert to testify on Sandra’s behalf; 75% of evidence submitted was withheld from the jury.

Sandra is due to be sentenced September 21st – she has been charged with 6 felony counts of depriving custodial rights. The circumstances surrounding her conviction raise concerns that she did not receive a fair trial.

Also concerning is the safety and well-being of the Rucki children. David Rucki went to great lengths in an attempt to silence Samantha…what has he got to hide, and what lengths will he go to bury the truth?

 

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Judge Karen J Asphaug

 

Judge David L Knutson

Judge David L Knutson

Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD

Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD

Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich

Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich

Explosive Rucki interview adds a new wrinkle to story by Michael Volpe

A previously unreleased police interview with Samantha Rucki raises further questions about whether her mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, received a fair trial…
Grazzini-Rucki put on an affirmative defense, meaning that she argued that the reasons for her actions outweighed any allegedly criminal acts she committed. She stated that she genuinely feared for the safety of her daughters and that her actions were an effort to protect them from an unsafe situation.

This police interview with Samantha Rucki appears to validate this fear.

Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story by Michael Volpe

freakydoor

Public Domain: https://pixabay.com

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.

crackedrucki

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

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?

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

spam clip art

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

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?

TearsDakotaCounty