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

 

Commentary: “Children and domestic violence victims die in this country every week by order of the family law courts…”

Public Domain: http://www.pd4pic.com

After reading this blog, Malinda left the following comment to share her thoughts regarding ABC 20/20’s coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and how they have, in her opinion, “aided and abetted an abuser“.

Malinda also offers insight into how the family court system fails to protect abuse victims and their children from harm, and instead misuses its power and authority to wrongfully take custody and place the children into the care of identified abusers; at great risk to the lives of the children involved.

Malinda warns that family court failures, and the attitudes of professionals who do not protect children from abuse, will cause devastation of families, significantly hurt children and may even contribute to murder. To offer an example, Malinda discusses the horrific murders committed by Nicholas Holzer, a dangerous abuser who was given custody by a family court and went on to murder his two children, parents as well as the family pet.

Malinda says in response to Casualities of W.A.R. Radio – “Beauty and the Basketball Player” Yahya McClain Interviews Former NBA Star Joe Smith, and Minnesota Mom Sandra Grazzini-Rucki :

All parties to the case of Sandra Grazzini Rucki treated Sandra exactly the same as Juana Holzer a divorcing mother of two young boys.

Sandra and her children were clearly victims of domestic violence. David Rucki is a named identified abuser by his wife, children, restraining orders filed by neighbors and the police…all 20/20 needed to do was scratch the surface to find the truth of what David Rucki did, what he is and what he has gotten away with.

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

20/20 is FAKE NEW ORGANIZATION and has aided and abetted an abuser!

Read how children and domestic violence victims die in this country every week by order of the family law courts…

CASE IN POINT Juana Holzer warned Judge Thomas Anderle of Santa Barbara, CA that her ex husband Nicolas Holzer was violent with her and her boys. She said, Nicholas Holzer was a batterer. Juana stated that Nicolas Holzer had raped her and molested their young sons Sebastian and Vincent. Juana feared for the safety of her boys in the care of their father…BUT as a result, Juana lost custody of her boys to their abusive father.

Nicolas Holzer (Source: Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office)

This frightened mother reached out with the same disclosures to CASA, Child Abuse Advocates in Santa Barbara, Catholic Charities, and to a Therapy Center also in the Santa Barbara area…with no results or support. A court appointed evaluator, Dr. Gary Rick examined/investigated the parents. Dr. Rick did not heed Juana’s warnings or give any weight to her disclosures regarding her violent ex husband and the fear the boys expressed to their mother as they were forced by the court to be alone with their father.

In his findings and report to Judge Anderle, Dr. Rick named Nicolas Holzer as the better parent(!)..and Juana as a paternal “alienator.” Bingo! As thousands of safe, fit, loving parents…Juana was placed on supervised visitation, she was ordered under guard when she visited her sons because of her expressed concerns of abuse against her and her children. Juana could not afford to pay for monitored visitation, so she was cut off from her children. The court and it’s appointees interfered with and destroyed her relationship with with her sons!

In August of 2014 Nicolas Holzer, Dr. Rick’s favored parent… murdered his own parents and Juana’s sons. The sons, she could not protect. Nicholas Holzer knifed his parents and his sons to death in their beds while they slept… not even the family dog could survive Nicolas Holzer. He butchered the beloved family pet, an Australian Shepard.

All parties to the case were against the mother.. from the very beginning, the attitudes were similar to that of Ms. Elliot, Mr. Rucki’s attorney and 20/20.

 

NOTE: Juana Holzer is now suing ex-husband Nicholas Holzer, and the family trust, for wrongful death for the brutal murder of her two children.

 

For More Information on the Holzer Case:

Ex-Wife Sues Nicolas Holzer in Children’s Murders (The Independent)

Man indicted in fatal stabbing of parents, two sons and pet dog (Los Angeles Times)

Nicholas Holzer Murders (The Independent)

 

E-mail complaints, thoughts and feedback about “Footprints in the Snow” to ABC 20/20 at:

elizabeth.a.vargas@abc.com  and  sean.dooley@abc.com

 

Read More from Michael Volpe’s investigation into the Grazzini-Rucki case: Did 20/20 Manipulate the Rucki Story to Hide Abuse? (CDN, Michael Volpe)

Footprints in the Snow or Wild Goose Chase? Did ABC 20/20 Edit Audio Recordings to Suppress Evidence of Abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki Case? Pt. 1

Lying: A Weapon in the Grazzini-Rucki Case – Do Comments from Son Reveal Alienation or Abuse?

Are remarks Nico Rucki wrote on a facebook post evidence of parental alienation, as father David Rucki claims, or further evidence of abuse??

David Rucki read a victim impact statement at the sentencing of ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki that read, in part, “Nico was forced by Sandy to write a false statement on Facebook. They were not the truth they were his mother’s words....”

The statement in question included remarks from son, Nico, that stated Rucki is abusive towards him. It has since been removed from Facebook.  20/20 included a screen shot of that Facebook post in their coverage of the case in the episode “Footprints in the Snow”. What can be read on the screenshot includes: “My dad is a bad person, he is abusive, verbally and physically…” and “Has hit all of his children...” and “He doesn’t care for any of his children...” and “He’s a thief, a male (blurred out) and an unfit father.” and “He is currently fighting for rights of me and my (unclear)..” The screenshot featured on 20/20 has no date to indicate when it originated.

Screenshot ABC 20/20

Rucki is pushing the narrative that Sandra forced her son to write this post doesn’t offer fact or evidence needed to determine its authenticity. It would be easy to claim this one Facebook post is a sign of “parental alienation” but looking deeper into the circumstances of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Nico’s own history suggests this Facebook post may actually validate that abuse has occurred.

Some additional information –

Parental Alienation or Abuse Excuse?

Dr. Paul Reitmann’s Faulty Diagnosis Does Not Meet

APA Practice Guidelines in Grazzini-Rucki Case

In August 2012, Judge Knutson ordered Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children to meet with Dr. Paul Reitman, a White Bear Lake psychologist specializing in parental alienation. Judge Knutson determined that Dr. Reitman was needed because supervised visitation between Rucki and the children failed, and that reunification therapy had not begun. There are allegations that emotional abuse and threatening behavior occurred in supervised visitation, and the reason it failed was because of Rucki’s abusive behavior towards the children.

Dr. Paul Reitman (Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com)

Dr. Reitman met with Sandra and the children for less than 30 minutes when he determined that the children were in need of “deprogramming”. That means Reitman gave 5 minutes or less to each member of the family, when coming to the conclusion that would ultimately destroy this family. Dr. Reitman conducted no tests, analysis or evaluation. He did not consider the evidence of abuse, the police reports, the OFP violations, Rucki’s criminal record and other evidence available. The way in which Dr. Reitman diagnosed the alleged “parental alienation” does not meet  APA established practice guidelines; it is not credible. American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines

There was no hearing, no findings, and no complaints that Sandra had ever harmed her children. In fact, the children have consistently begged to return to the care of their mother, the response from the Court and from their father, was anger, dismissal and forced reunification therapy. The cure for “parental alienation” in this case has been to induce alienation in the Rucki children against mother their under the guise of “therapy”.

Media descriptions about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki reiterate negative messages given to the children, these messages all originate back to David Rucki. The children are being forced to accept abuse, and told the mother who sought to protect them is mentally ill, unemotional, has abandoned them, and is a criminal. At the same time the media is refusing to present evidence suggesting that abuse has occurred, and has largely excluded Sandra’s side of the story from its coverage.

Negative messages given to the children were also revealed by S. Rucki who said in an audio message from April 2013 that Dr. Gilbertson, the Guardian ad Litem, and others made false statements on why she could not see her mother. The children were told that their mother went to Philadelphia, that she signed over her rights, and that she was committed to a mental health facility. S. Rucki says she did not believe them because “their lies would overlap“.

It is in this environment, under these pressures, that Nico Rucki has recanted abuse and then spoke against his mother and the “drama” he claims she brought to his life. 

Statements from Dr. Gilbertson

Validate Abuse Allegations

Statements made on the Facebook post are similar to findings made by Dr. James Gilbertson, a court ordered therapist.

Dr. Gilbertson was appointed by Judge Knuston. This is an important point to make, and an issue being brought up by those seeking reform in the family court system – family court judges, and Guardian ad Litems are personally choosing therapists and professionals to provide services to families. Often these professionals share social and professional relationships with the judge, and court players – they come onto these cases with bias, and profit when repeatedly appointed to family court cases.  Parents are being excluded from the decision making process, and these professionals hold massive power over their families, and their lives.

Parents who do not comply with the court’s directive, and who appear to resist therapy (or raise concerns), are often threatened with sanctions, loss of parenting time or loss of custody. Parents comply under duress, there is no therapeutic value in a forced relationship, that is based on the appearance of meeting the court’s demand.

Sandra found herself in a similar situation, when you hear attorney Lisa Elliott say things like “she did not want to go to therapy” or “she didn’t comply” or “she didn’t do what was needed to see her children”, those remarks are coming from this environment of coercion, where the therapists are working for the courts and not for the well-being of the family.

Dr. Gilbertson supported findings of alienation, and supported deprogramming, but statements he made in a February 2013 letter to Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich suggests abuse did occur. Statements Dr. Gilbertson made in this letter mirror statements made on Nico’s Facebook post.

Gilbertson wrote a letter from Feb. 6, 2013 that states, in part,  “At this time, it is my opinion that we need an assertive stance from the court to order these children to order these children to attend face-to-face sessions with their father. The children are of the belief and will state it openly that no one can force them to see their father if that is their choice.

“There are two prevailing emotional themes that these children speak to: One is fear of being in the presence of their father given what they allege to he being an angry and violent person. A second theme is the anger they have over his alleged mistreatment and a corollary of this, a belief that their father is morally flawed, i.e. womanizer, drinks too much, and is hiding money.”

 

Dr. Gilbertson’s “assertive stance” involved forcing the Rucki children to attend family court hearings, and listen to testimony and evidence as their parents battled in court. Certainly this information would provide the children with knowledge about the details of the custody dispute, and may shape their perspectives as well.   

Dr. James Gilbertson, PhD

Rucki’s Threatening Voicemail Messages:

Documented Emotional, Psychological Abuse

Transcripts of voice mail messages that David Rucki left for his son in 2011 demonstrate emotional, psychological abuse. In addition, the messages prove that Rucki was providing negative messages about Sandra to the children.

You can read transcripts of the voicemail messages by clicking on this link: recorded voice mail messages

Excerpts from the transcript include the following statements (not in order) that David Rucki made to his son:

“What the f- is wrong with you? You know what?” (Disconnects)

Six Similar Non Verbal Sounds (The children were in fear for their life because they believed the six gun shots were meant one shot for each member of family.)

“Why are you dropping out of hockey? What is it proving to anything that you’re dropping out? You’re not hurting me. You’re going to regret it for the rest of your G–d damn f– life….”

“So good luck to you kid because um keep going down the route you’re going and you’ve got nothing going. And your mother is going to be be the blame for this. And unfortunately for you, you’re going to have so much regret in your life from what she did to you, that you will never look at things the same. I wish you would pull your head out of your ass and you’d call and talk because you need some stabilization in you…“

“And when we talk soon, you’re going to be accountable for how you’re acting. And I will not let this fly. I am your father. You will respect me.

Did Rucki exert similar pressure, threats on his son to get him to recant abuse allegations?

Consider this – in a June 30, 2016, interview with S. Rucki and the Lakeville police, the teen tells Officer Kelli Coughlin that her father “guilted” and “pressured” her to recant abuse allegations. 

Reporter Michael Volpe writes about the interview, “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.” Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story

 

Lying as a Weapon

Nico Rucki has admitted, in his own words, that he lies and “lying is the best weapon”. Is this why he currently  is recanting previous abuse allegations, and speaking out against his mother?

Truth Will Prevail

Of all the allegations raised, that is not disputed – lying has been used as a weapon in the Grazzini-Rucki case.

The divorce began with the lies of David Rucki and his “paper divorce” scheme. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was removed from the only home she knew, where she resided as the primary caregiver of her children, based on lies. The children were forcibly taken from their mother, based on lies. The children were told they could not return to their mother’s care, based a lie. The children have been told their mother abandoned them, a lie. Lies have pervaded the current child support hearings. Sandra was convicted and sent to jail based on suppression of truth.  And if she prevails on appeal, it will be because the truth set her free.

In her efforts to protect her children from abuse, and to continue to fight in a court that has violated every law and every constitutional right, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has shown that she is a fighter. No mother would make such great sacrifices, and risk her own freedom, if she did not truly love her children. Sandra is even fighting for the child who has rejected her, that is love. That is the truth.

For Additional Information: 

Chaos, Horror After Courts Step in for Rucki Family

Footprints in the Snow or Wild Goose Chase? Did ABC 20/20 Edit Audio Recordings to Suppress Evidence of Abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki Case? Pt. 1

Rucki Enraged: Voicemail Transcripts Reveal Threats, Emotional Abuse Against Son

Unwarranted: Was the Arrest Warrant Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Improperly Handled?

In August 2015, a sealed warrant for the arrest of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was “accidentally” posted on the public webpage of the Dakota County Sheriff’s office leading to the warrant being widely published, and shared, in news media outlets across the country.

Sensitive information about the sealed warrant was also given to abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, from The Star Tribune. This means that David was given information, and knew about, the arrest warrant BEFORE Sandra did. 

Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie claims the leak was just a “glitch”. Dakota County’s mishanding of Sandra’s arrest warrant is NOT just a “glitch” – it is a serious error that has violated Sandra’s due process rights, and the questionable way the arrest warrant was handled may have greater legal implications.

Could this “glitch” cost Dakota County their case against Sandra? A recent court ruling states that improper service is grounds for dismissal; certainly in this case, there was not only improper service but outright negligence to protect information so sensitive that the judge ordered the warrant to be sealed. 

Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie (courtesy photo)

 

Signed, Sealed, but NOT Delivered

When someone is suspected of a crime, law enforcement obtains a warrant of arrest which is a document signed by a judge authorizing the detention of an individual, or authorizing the search and seizure of an individual’s property.

In the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, a nation wide warrant for arrest was submitted by Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena before a judge, and put under a seal on August 12, 2015. Sandra was charged with 3 counts of felony deprivation of parental rights. According to Keena a seal was needed “because disclosure could cause defendant to flee, hide, or otherwise prevent execution of the warrant”. The seal was to last until Sandra is arrested, and returned to the state.

Amended Warrant Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

NOTE: Sandra is a flight attendant with an impeccable service record; she works with the public in her job, and has never been a danger to anyone. Just the opposite, Sandra has a reputation for providing a high quality care to customers, and is known for her easy smile, and gentle approach. Sandra has been staying in Florida in between flights, she has a squeaky-clean background, and has no prior criminal history.  

Kathryn M. Keena, C-Span: http://www.c-span.org/person/?kathrynkeena

Was a Sealed Warrant Necessary?

A seal means that the warrant is filed in secret, and its existence will not be made public. The subject of the warrant has no idea that they are wanted on charges until they are apprehended. A sealed warrant is usually reserved for special circumstances where public knowledge may jeopardize the investigation and/or issuance of the warrant.

Putting a seal on an arrest warrant is NOT a common procedure; and is even more extraordinary when used against an ordinary Minnesota Mom. Sandra has no prior criminal history, and has attended all scheduled court dates (related to ongoing custody issues) – even travelling from out of state to do so. Sandra has also worked at the same job for over 20 years, and maintains a stable lifestyle. She posed absolutely no risk of danger to anyone, and was certainly not a flight risk. 

Further, the police knew exactly where to find Sandra – according to the police report, the Lakeville police had previously issued search warrants for the airline she worked for, and had no problem finding out her address, phone number, bank account information and employment information. Sandra was being monitored before the warrant was issued. While this was happening, Sandra maintained her normal routine, and did not display any signs that she would evade any legal process.

A summons to appear at a court date would have been sufficient, rather than going to these unnecessary and costly, efforts used by Dakota County. Further, criminal charges are NOT evidence of guilt.  A defendant/suspect is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Somebody’s Watching Me… (Free Image: http://www.acclaimimages.com)

Sealed Warrant Goes Public Due to a “Glitch”

Despite the exhaustive efforts of Dakota County to seal the arrest warrant, there was a glitch (or perhaps a leak?) and out of all the warrants entered in the system…somehow only the sealed warrant belonging to Sandra was “accidentally” posted publicly on the Dakota County Sheriff’s website.

And if that was not bad enough (gasp!) the Star Tribune, who had been in contact with Lakeville police for months, was alerted and went public, announcing an arrest warrant had been issued for Sandra.

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

 

Brandon Stahl, Star Tribune, source: YouTube

Followed by Michael Brodkorb, a former reporter with Star Tribune, posting an update on August 21st on his Twitter feed, mentioning the supposedly sealed arrest warrant: https://twitter.com/mbrodkorb/status/634764171125592064

The Star Tribune then informed Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, about the sealed warrant…and gleefully spread the news across multiple social media venues. The seal had been broken on the warrant as the news spread nationwide thanks to the special efforts made by Stahl and Brodkorb at the Star Tribune. Keep in mind one of the common reasons that a warrant is sealed is to prevent news of the warrant from reaching the media, who could compromise the case with disclosure.

By “coincidence” a local news outlet reports on the close relationship between Lt. Jason Polinski of the Lakeville Police Department and the Star Tribune, who was working on the Grazzini-Rucki case, “A Star Tribune story in April provided new information that helped police build a case for an arrest warrant for Grazzini-Rucki, who previously was considered a “person of interest,” in the case, Polinski said. ” Police looking for mother in disappearance of daughters in Minnesota

Even David Rucki himself acknowledged the connection,”..Rucki added he was “very grateful” for the assistance of law enforcement and media attention..” David had alot to be “grateful” for considering Michael Brodkorb of The Star Tribune tipped him off about the sealed warrant. Father of missing Lakeville sisters ‘relieved’ by warrant for ex-wife’s arrest

At that point there is no reason for the warrant to remain sealed. Instead, providing Sandra with a notice to appear in court would have been appropriate. Instead, Dakota County relentlessly pursued Sandra. At great cost to tax payers, Dakota County had the warrant removed from the public website and then re-sealed. Sandra was later apprehended by U.S. Marshalls, in Florida, and transported across the country to be brought back to Minnesota to answer to criminal charges. 

Keep in mind that Sandra works as a flight attendant, and she could have easily arranged her own transportation back to the state – as she had done numerous times in the past to answer to proceedings related to her custody dispute.

Recent Case Presents Compelling Reason for Dismissal

The significance of the sealed warrant being publicly posted, and then making the news outlets, is that information about the sealed warrant was not only improperly released but also improperly served. You can not “re-seal” a sealed warrant that has been this compromised; it serves no purpose. Even more important, every individual is protected by laws designed to uphold personal liberty. These laws are in place to limit the government’s ability to take our freedom or property without due process. 

In the 2011 case of Jones v. Brown County (Civil No. 11-CV-568, SRN/FLN) the District Court found that, “ Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), improper service of process may be grounds for dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). In this case, none of the defendants have been properly served. “

The Court then dismissed a claim made against Brown County because, “It is clear that process was not properly served in this case. “ And, “With regard to the individual defendants, under Minnesota Law service may be effectuated “by delivering a copy [of the summons and complaint] to the individual personally or by leaving a copy at the individual’s usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(a). The only attempt at service upon the individual defendants in this case was by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the county offices in which these defendants work. These mailings did not constitute service by mail, as the mailings did not include two copies of Form 22, or a substantially similar notice and acknowledgment form, as required by Minnesota law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.05. Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for service upon an individual. Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for insufficient service of process…

“And because Plaintiffs improperly served the original Complaint, this action was never properly commenced. See R. 3.01. “ Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_11-cv-00568/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_11-cv-00568-1.pdf

Given that the sealed warrant was improperly served, the Prosecutor’s Office should promptly dismiss all charges. Plz stay tuned to the Justice 4 Grazzini-Rucki Family blog for news and updates!

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at freedigitalimages.net

 

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. “ ~ Mahatma Gandhi

 

Footprints in the Snow or Wild Goose Chase? Did ABC 20/20 Edit Audio Recordings to Suppress Evidence of Abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki Case? Pt. 2

Did ABC 20/20 edit audio recordings of David Rucki verbally abusing his young son, to portray David in a more sympathetic light? And what message does their reporting send to abuse victims, to child abuse victims?

Part One of this Series: http://wp.me/p7FXmj-2F

Attacking Zone: Clues in the Hockey References?

The next scene shows a lone David, standing in the snow, looking towards his house.

Vargas says, “He left this message after finding out his son, Nico, dropped out of hockey, his favorite long time sport.” The message from David says, “Do yourself a favor, get your ass back in hockey!”

ABC 20/20 and Vargas had obviously listened to the voicemail messages, a transcript of the messages was also available. Vargas implied that something was wrong for Nico to drop out of “his favorite long time sport.” The truth is that Nico wasn’t all that interested in hockey, and wanted to pursue acting.

David wanted Nico to continue with hockey, and hated the thought of his son becoming an actor. One voicemail David left to Nico says, “You’re making the biggest mistake of your life. You’ve got nothing other than school and sports. You can have acting, you can do all that shit, but the bottom line is Nico, you fuck this up, you never get it back.” recorded voice mail messages

Why was David so intent on having Nico participate in hockey. In my **opinion** there are two reasons. 1) David was serving as President to the local hockey association and needed to have his own children playing hockey in order to be eligible for the position. 2) David enjoyed the social aspects of hanging out at the hockey rink, drinking, and having fun. If his children were not enrolled in hockey, he would not have access to that social group.

In July 2011, David resigned from his position as President of the hockey association for “personal reasons”.  Controversy followed – there was talk that David was mismanaging the finances and abusing his position as President. In the same month that David resigned three other Board members resigned, including David’s best friend and his wife, who also served on the Board. Another Board member was removed for his role in the controversy.

Locals discuss the controversy regarding the hockey association, and David’s role in it, at this discussion board: http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=515265&sid=10e573ea5427f01484d303ab387bafe9

In my **opinion** it does not make sense that on one hand David is claiming that he is being alienated from his children, and yet his focus in the voicemails is only about hockey. You do not hear David say things like ‘I love you’ or ‘I miss you’ or ‘I can’t wait to see you again’ or even asking his son how he is doing. Instead you hear threats, shaming, guilt, and coercion – which are all tactics abusers use to gain power and control over victims.

And then to have David pressure Nico to participate in hockey also does not make sense. If Nico were to join hockey he’d spend most of his time practicing and playing games – which would taken even more time away from spending time with his father, David. Why would David encourage Nico to spend LESS time with him??

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

What Voicemail Transcripts Submitted in Court as Evidence Reveal

The short excerpts played on “Footprints” in the snow omitted 99% of the entire recordings. The viewers did not get to hear much of anything. Supplemented by the heavy editing was Vargas pushing her own narrative, almost as if she was drowning out the rest of the voicemail messages from being heard.

Elizabeth Vargas, journalist and anchor, ABC 20/20

Vargas also failed to ask Nico about the voicemail messages because she was focused on questioning Nico about whether his mother put him up to inventing abuse allegations. Vargas must have heard the voicemail messages but she does not question Nico about them, and how it made him feel? Why?

These same voice mail messages, and others, were submitted to the family court, presided by Judge David Knutson,  in 2011 as evidence. The evidence included audio recordings, and included a written transcript of the messages as well. The voice mail messages were used to confirm that abuse was occurring, and that David’s behavior posed a danger to the children. The messages were just one piece of a much larger body of evidence suggesting abuse had occurred. Judge Knutson dismissed ALL credible evidence of abuse, without merit or legal justification.

The message Vargas refers to is titled “Message Six” and begins with, “If you have the balls to listen to this message, you’re going to find out that you’re going to regret every stupid decision you have made this summer listening to your mother…” David goes on to berate Nico, make negative and insulting comments about Sandra and uses guilt and shame tactics to manipulate Nico to do what he (David) wants.

The same message ends with this statement from David, “Your mother is holding me out with the court. There’s nothing I can do until I get through the court. Do yourself a favor and get your ass back into hockey. Don’t screw this up for yourself. You’ll regret it your whole life. And you’re going to regret it when you find out that it was your mother who lied to you.”’

For more info about the voicemail messages, plz read: Rucki Enraged: Voicemail Transcripts Reveal Threats, Emotional Abuse Against Son

In my **opinion**, if you carefully listen to what David is saying in his voicemail messages – he is telling Nico that once he gets through the court, he will have access to him, he will deal with Nico’s refusal to comply. David makes statements in his voicemail recordings that imply threats, that imply punishment and state that the only way to please his father is to do what he wants.

Statements tainclude:

“I’m waiting, um, I’m still your dad, and that isn’t going to change, and we will be together soon. And I’m basically going to tell you I’m going to hold you accountable and you will have to deal with me because, you know, the way you’re treating me is wrong.”

“Nico, it’s your dad, still wondering why you are not going to captain’s practice. Why are you dropping out of hockey? You’re not hurting me. You’re going to regret it for the rest of your g—d damn f—ing life and I’m trying to prevent that.”

“What the f– is wrong with you? You know what? You f– don’t understand.”

“I’m just calling to remind you that you will regret this your whole life by not following through with what you started. Secondly, I am your father and I guarantee, Nico, that we will be talking soon. And when we talk, you’re going to be held accountable for how you’re acting. And I wil not let this fly. I am your father. And you will respect me.”

“Um, you know, I wish you would pull your head out your a– and you’d call me back and talk because you need to get some stabilization in you, because what you’re doing is self-destructive and it’s not good, it’s not healthy. A

“I’m waiting, um, I’m still your dad, and that isn’t going to change, and we will be together soon. And I’m basically going to tell you I’m going to hold you accountable and you will have to deal with me because, you know, the way you’re treating me is wrong.”

“Nico, it’s your dad, still wondering why you are not going to captain’s practice. Why are you dropping out of hockey? You’re not hurting me. You’re going to regret it for the rest of your g—d damn f—ing life and I’m trying to prevent that.”

“What the f– is wrong with you? You know what? You f– don’t understand.”

“I’m just calling to remind you that you will regret this your whole life by not following through with what you started. Secondly, I am your father and I guarantee, Nico, that we will be talking soon. And when we talk, you’re going to be held accountable for how you’re acting. And I wil not let this fly. I am your father. And you will respect me.”

“Um, you know, I wish you would pull your head out your a– and you’d call me back and talk because you need to get some stabilization in you, because what you’re doing is self-destructive and it’s not good, it’s not healthy. And you know, eventually, we will be together here talking soon. Um, so you can run and hide all you want, but the sooner you confront this, the better off you’ll be.”

“Here’s one thing you need to think about: You’ve got one shot at life. One. And if you’re not guided properly, Nico, you will piss that away because you’re 15 years old and you don’t know your head from your a–. You’ve got a lot to learn in life. You make a mistake now, you’ll never get it back. Because you are being emotional like your mother, you will never get it back. I’m tired of all this crap I’ve been put through…”

This is very extreme language, that is NOT an appropriate way to communicate to a child. It is abusive.

Why did ABC 20/20 and Elizabeth Vargas suppress these voicemail recordings? The viewers should have been allowed to hear for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. Instead the viewers were given a nicely packaged story concocted by ABC 20/20, and dramatically narrated by Vargas. The irony in all of this, is that these invented stories are no different than the alienation that Sandra is accused of.

“When someone hears about child abuse, it’s easy to assume the abuse is physical, but child abuse can also come in the emotional form. Child emotional abuse includes but isn’t limited to verbal assaults, constant belittling, making threats, ignoring the child, providing no love and exposing the child to constant family conflict.” Source: Moody Air Force Base. http://media.defense.gov

Fact or Pigeon?

The next scene from  “Footprints in the Snow” shows a courtroom and Vargas delves into a narrative of how Judge David Knutson appointed therapist to try to facilitate a relationship between David Rucki and his children.

A picture of a smiling David composed next to an order for reunification therapy, the courts suggesting Moxie, fills the screen. The court appoints an advocate, and special therapists to facilitate a relationship with their father, “the children say they don’t want one”.

Only now does Vargas mention abuse – but note the context she uses. “Nico takes to facebook, he writes my dad is a bad person, he abusive, verbally and physically…”

Didn’t the producers at ABC 20/20 and Vargas overhear some of the verbal abuse in the voicemail messages? Yet they failed to ask David about that. And failed to draw the connection between what Nico reported and what actually happened – that these recordings were in David’s own words!

Vargas goes to on talk about abuse of the runaway Rucki sisters in this way, “Gianna and Samantha make audio recordings to support what their mother says…”

Samantha’s recording is obviously emotional, her voice is choked with tears as she recounts physical abuse at the hands of her father. Vargas seems unsympathetic. 

Vargas goes on to report that Judge David Knutson found there is no proof of abuse, and the expert he appointed found “evidence of parental alienation”.  Judge Knutson decides that Sandra is the problem, and takes drastic measures.

Judge David L Knutson

The message being sent to victims of domestic violence, and child abuse, by ABC 20/20 and Vargas is harmful – it says if you disclose abuse, you will not be believed. Even worse, it casts suspicion on the children who bravely come forward – accusing the child victim that something is wrong with them, that they are “brainwashed”. All of this without investigation. Or if there is a report or investigation, claims of abuse are dismissed.

Abuse involves a pattern of threatening and harmful behavior inflicted on another person. When the relationship ends, the abusive behavior does not merely go away but continues in another form. There is also a term called Domestic Violence by Proxy which means that when an abusive partner no longer has access to a victim, he will try to regain control by using the children as a weapon. DV by Proxy describes abusive behavior that continues post separation – controlling behavior, stalking, harassment, legal abuse, turning a child against a parent – are all ways children are used by an abusive ex partner to regain control or inflict harm on a former partner. When court professionals fail to recognize the abuse, and how it manifests after separation, their actions and court rulings result in further harm to abuse victims, and their children. Misinformation about abuse, in turn, affects every level of society, including media outlets because there is a common presumption that judges never do wrong, that courts are always right. This is difficult for a victim of abuse to overcome; and it prevents our community from understanding abuse, and its effects, in a way that could promote ending the cycle of violence, and could assist in offering better protections to victims. 

Footprints on My Heart

An emotional Sandra, on the verge of tears, tells Vargas, “I’ve never done anything but be there for my children… my children are my life.”

If anything positive is to come out of “Footprints in the Snow” I hope it is this… that wherever Sandra’s children are now, that they remember the memories shown in the home movies where mom is loving on them, and they are enjoying time spent together.

I hope her children know what Sandra has said, that the hurt and lies and forcible separation will not erase this truth: “my children are my life.” 

I hope the Rucki children know how much they are deeply loved by a mother who grieves the loss of them everyday, and who has never stopped fighting to protect them from harm and be involved in their lives. 

Because that is what I saw, as a viewer, watching “Footprints in the Snow”. And the outrage of this story is that a mother’s love and efforts to protect her children, resulted in punishment and forcible separation from those very children.

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

 

Footprints in the Snow or Wild Goose Chase? Did ABC 20/20 Edit Audio Recordings to Suppress Evidence of Abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki Case? Pt. 1

Source: http://www.photos-public-domain.com. This picture is free for any use.

 

Did ABC 20/20 edit audio recordings of David Rucki verbally abusing his young son, to portray him in a more sympathetic light? And what message does their reporting send to abuse victims, to child abuse victims?

Footage from “Footprints in the Snow” suggests that ABC 20/20 and reporter Elizabeth Vargas drastically edited a recording of David Rucki leaving an angry voicemail message to his teenage son, and omitted the rest of the recording that would show that David was emotionally abusive, denigrating the mother. The recordings are part of a series of voicemail messages, one message included the sound of 6 gun shots (one for each family member).

The Justice Blog will present you with 20/20’s coverage and additional information that was not included in the episode.

Investigative journalist Michael Volpe, of Communities Digital News, has also written an article that will provide additional information, and insight: Did 20/20 Manipulate the Rucki Story to Hide Abuse? Michael Volpe (CDN)

 

Where Footprints Lead

The sequence of events in “Footrprints in the Snow” begins with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki describing to Elizabeth Vargas an incident when David Rucki violently assaulted her. Sandra says that David broke into the house, jumped on the bed and started choking her. He also tried to suffocate her with a pillow.

What 20/20 does not say is that Sandra was so afraid of David that she later installed security cameras around her home because of his violence. Security cameras captured David stalking her on numerous occasions. Neighbors were also afraid of David due to his violent behavior, and has also installed security cameras around their own home, and filed a harassment restraining order against him.

David Rucki Stalking Photos, Police Report

Information about HRO filed against David Rucki by a neighbor

 

Elizabeth Vargas, ABC 20/20 Anchor, Journalist. Source: http://88-celebrity.blogspot.com

 

The next scene is an image of five smiling Rucki children, taken at Christmas, posing with Santa. Sandra is standing at the left side of the picture. David is absent. The photo is not dated, nor is any context given.

 

Vargas says, “The children now ages 8-14 now remain in Sandra’s custody and refuse to even see David; rebuffing all of his attempts to connect.” Note” Vargas is reporting ONLY David’s perspective, that of Sandra and the children is excluded.
The next scene begins with the image of a telephone key pad, you hear the ping of numbers being dialed. Viewers are given just tiny bits of audio of David saying, “This is your Dad, call me. I would like you to call me back.” These two lines are a tiny piece of a larger body of recorded voicemail messages, and a transcript of those messages that David left for his son, Nico. The tone of these messages is clearly threatening, hostile and verbally abusive. Yet you’d never know that if you solely relied on ABC 20/20 and Vargas’ reports.: recorded voice mail messages
Vargas says in a dramatic tone, “With his children ignoring him, his frustration mounts…”
Note: Vargas adopts David’s term “frustration”. David uses this term frequently to describe his angry and abusive behavior.

Keep in mind these are children who has witnessed their father violently assault their mother and had reported numerous acts of emotional and physical abuse – leaving comments on social media, making reports to therapists, GALs, Judge Knutson, police, social workers, CPS, friends. The story that Samantha and Gianna Rucki have recounted about the abuse has not changed – those they encountered after they ran away recall that the girls appeared frightened of their father, spoke of abuse, and their behavior itself indicated abuse occurred. Multiple Witness Reports: Rucki Sisters Fearful of Father, Felt Safe at Ranch/

In another report involving abuse, CPS reports from the Rucki girls indicate they were victims of abuse from their father. And had witnessed various forms of physical and emotional abuse inflicted on their mother, and saw visible bruises. Nico also reports to CPS that his father put a gun to his head.The CPS system also failed the Rucki children by screening out multiple reports of abuse.: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316692570/SamiRucki

CPS screened out many of the reports of abuse. Other professionals ignored or minimized the children’s cries for help. And then Sandra became the target – instead of investigating the abuse, Sandra was wrongly accused of brainwashing her children so they would invent allegations of abuse against their father. The message in this – the children are being told their concerns are not valid, and that something is wrong with them for reporting abuse.