Michael Brodkorb Exposed: “Search and Destroy” Blogger

“Michael Brodkorb is nothing but a political operative consciously discrediting, demonizing, and distorting the good guys for his own financial gain…” ~ Dede Evavold

“I’m not into exposing anyone or the “gotcha” stuff…” ~ Michael Brodkorb

Blogger, Dede Evavold, of “Red Herring Alert” recently published an article Inverting Reality (Red Herring Alert) exposing blogger Michael Brodkorb’s coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case as propaganda, and citing specific incidents where he engaged in harassment and defamation against her, under the guise of “journalism”.

“Inverting Reality” also discusses Brodkorb’s troubled past , documenting a long history of out of control behavior – a domestic violence incident involving his wife, a sexual fling with Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch that ended his political career, and driving while intoxicated, crashed his car and nearly killed himself. In another embarrassment, in 2011, Brodkorb made secret recordings of conversations with his GOP bosses regarding his firing (after his tryst with Amy Koch was exposed) . The recordings revealed, among other things, that Brodkorb was struggling with his mental health – which could explain his erratic behavior. 

Brodkorb also has a reputation for inciting fights within ranks of the Republican party, among his own team , where he was known for screaming fits and personal attacks against others, it said his eruptions could leave fear in his wake..” (The Fall of Michael Brodkorb) Another Republican, retired Army Lt. Col. Joe Repya, described Brodkorb as “a ‘thug’ with ‘an intimidating personality’ who ran roughshod over party members, elected officials and even volunteers…’You have to understand how frightened people within the party became of Michael Brodkorb..’” (Michael Brodkorb: Admired, feared and, above all, Republican )

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Brodkorb has also been described as “always pushing the limits..” Brodkorb, once one of the most powerful people in the Senate, used his political knowledge and connections as ammo in carefully crafted blogs designed to attack political targets. Democrats denounced Brodkorb as a “Republican operative” paid to write hit pieces on their candidates. For his work, Brodkorb was paid very well. Initially Brodkorb began blogging anonymously on Minnesota Democrats Exposed (created in 2004) but in a fit of rage, he accidentally exposed his identity while posting online, and reluctantly, was forced to admit to his clandestine activities. Brodkorb says about MDE,”When you’re writing Minnesota Democrats Exposed you’re waking up every day and looking for a target. Even though that kind of thing drives traffic, it’s not a very fulfilling way to write...” (‘I’m done with partisan politics’: a Q&A with Michael Brodkorb) Due to the insulting content of MDE, Brodkorb was sued for libel – dismissed by a court in 2007. Complaints continued to be raised against Brodkorb to this day. 

 In the end it seems both the Democrats and the Republican got the last laugh – as Brodkorb’s antics resulted in his political career going up in flames.

Setting politics aside, what is really at issue here is Brodkorb’s character, and pattern of bullying that continues to this day, now manifesting in rage towards Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, co-defendant Dede Evavold, and supporters. The venom to which Brodkorb spews on social media rants, and articles, has led many believe that he works on David Rucki’s payroll.

Indeed, all of Brodkorb’s articles on the Grazzini-Rucki case portray Rucki in a sympathetic light and have ignored or minimized Rucki’s lengthy criminal history, as well as the extensive evidence of the abuse Sandra and the children suffered at Rucki’s brutal hands. There is only one side that Brodkorb portrays – and that is of David Rucki.

Let’s take a deeper look…

Brodkorb: “It Was All About Search and Destroy…”

History is known to repeat itself, and only history can be trusted to tell the truth about Michael Brodkorb.

In 2004, Brodkorb begins blogging on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Tactics used on MDE are eerily similar to those used by Brodkorb today, in his coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case, “ When I was writing Minnesota Democrats Exposed, it was all about search and destroy, writing sensational headlines, driving traffic and making mountains out of molehills. It was something I got out of my system…” (‘I’m done with partisan politics’: a Q&A with Michael Brodkorb)

Brodkorb’s search and destroy tactics paid off, he became indispensable to political candidates seeking to dig up dirt on opponents, and dedicated his blog to mud slinging. For his work, Brodkorb was paid generously. In November 2006, Brodkorb was the highest paid blogger in the state of Minnesota, generating $55,200 a year to work for the campaign of Rep. Mark Kennedy under the guise of “part time press consultant”. Brodkorb achieved this feat by a narrow margin – Sen. Hillary Clinton, in the #1 position, paid her blogger just $4,800 more than what Brodkorb was earning. (Highest-Paid Campaign Bloggers: Clinton, Kennedy, Santorum)

Public Domain: hdwallpaper20.com

Brodkorb strongly denied that he has ever been paid to blog, but that has proven to be just another one of his many lies. (Bloggers proliferate on campaign rolls)

A blog (from February 2006) documents Brodkorb’s long history working as a paid operative, “Over the past two years, John Kline’s campaign paid $10,000 to Weber Johnson PA, a political consulting firm run by the brother of former Republican Congressman Vin Weber. Oddly enough, the source of many anonymous attacks on Kline’s opponent Coleen Rowley have come from a blogger who is employed by Weber Johnson PA…”  (Kline’s $ To Company That Pays Anonymous Blogger’s Salary? ) WHO led these anonymous attacks? None other than Michael Brodkorb.

Another example, from an expose written in Feb 2012( Brodkorb paid from GOP Senate Victory Fund) reveals that “…the Republican Senate Victory Fund paid Michael Brodkorb $7,500 for consulting work on January 31, 2011, as documented in a just-filed campaign finance report. This was in addition to $20,625 in late 2009, and $16,875 paid to Brodkorb for research in 2010. In sum, Brodkorb was paid $45,000 in in sixteen months from the Senate Victory Fund. These payments were in addition to Brodkorb’s state employee salary as a Senate staffer…” Brodkorb earned about $90,000 a year in his job as communications chief for Republicans at the Capitol.

Michael Brodkorb made a name for himself, and a career, by playing dirty. Pay Brodkorb enough, he will say anything. He rewrites facts and distorts information. He resorts to personal attacks and defamation without remorse. Brodkorb is not an independent source – he is a check book journalist who cannot be trusted.

An Experiment Gone Horribly Wrong

During the period Brodkorb covered the Grazzini-Rucki case for the Tribune, he was contracted as “just experiment”. Terry Sauer, the Tribune’s assistant managing editor for digital, gave a temporary offer to Brodkorb to write political editorials to balance the Liberal editorials published by the paper. The Tribune did not contract Brodkorb to write about the Grazzini-Rucki case; Brandon Stahl had already begun to to cover the case, and at the time was a popular reporter in Minnesota. Brodkorb’s assignment with the Tribune quickly turned into an obsession with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki that spun out of control when he became the mouthpiece for David Rucki, and began to suppress critical facts and evidence in the case to cover up the abuse of Sandra and the children, as well as the illegal activities of the court.

Brodkorb admits that he was attracted to David Rucki from their first meeting in April 2015 (Why I Wrote About the Rucki Case ) “Meeting David Rucki was one of my most emotional moments in writing about the case…. Physically, David is a big man – tall and broad. But his face looked lost and sullen. You could see the pain and sadness as he spoke about his missing daughters.

At one point, I was so overcome 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.”

An amber alert was never issued for the missing Rucki teens, and the police had stopped searching for them; presuming, correctly, that they were runaways. In their absence, David Rucki was given custody of all five children; at the time of the custody order he was on probation for violating a protective order against ex-wife Sandra. Rucki had also been ordered into anger management numerous times, which did nothing to quell his rage. Judge David Knutson, family court judge, ignored abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children and the evidence supporting their cries for help. The courts should have protected the Rucki children but, instead, sent them into the custody of a dangerous abuser, whom they have not been able to escape from. You will never hear about any of these facts in Brodkorb’s reporting.

For what Brodkorb had previously been paid, the Tribune wasn’t offering much. Sauer says he paid Brodkorb a modest salary – just “hundreds a month” – apparently he wasn’t worth even that! Brodkorb’s political articles failed to gain public interest; and his involvement in the Grazzini-Rucki case became the subject of controversy. The Tribune had enough of this “experiment” and in May 2016, ended their contract with Brodkorb. Sauer said about cutting ties with Brodkorb, “It really is all about us moving in another direction with the budget we’ve got.” (Brodkorb on the end of his Star Tribune blog: ‘It was never meant to be a forever thing’)

Apologetically Sauer offers to give Brodkorb a job reference.. is that sincere or just lip service? How many times do girls break up with their boyfriends and offer to “just be friends”. Same thing.

A Village Missing It’s Idiot in Minnesota

For the past several years, Brodkorb has spent long days and nights in front of a blinking screen, obsessively covering the Grazzini-Rucki case, while life goes on around him.

Blogger Dede Evavold, of Red Herring Alert, a victim, reflects, “Brodkorb became a pen for hire to harass and intimidate witnesses, interfere with the legal process and lie with impunity during our trials.

Michael Brodkorb currently has a blog that is now entirely dedicated to demonizing and discrediting me to change the narrative in this case and shift the focus away from the true facts.

He also added Allison Mann as a contributing author. Who is Allison Mann? Mann is a paralegal with Elliott Law Office and lives in Lakeville, Minnesota. Elliott Law Offices provides legal services to the father involved in this case, but Brodkorb states. ‘Elliott Law Office is not affiliated with Missing in Minnesota.’ Okay, and I’ve got prime swampland to sell you! Also, Allison Mann has been the photographer of the numerous photos taken prior to my false court hearings on my false charges…” Inverting Reality (Red Herring Alert)

Allison Mann: Paralegal Elliott Law Offices | Author: Missing in Minnesota (Source: Twitter)

Has Brodkorb been paid for his coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and online attacks against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and supporters?

Let’s Take a Look at Brodkorb’s Record:

*History of working as a blogger paid to write propaganda, and generate attacks against targets. Lies about receiving payments for writing blogs.

*Strong interest in Judge David L. Knutson, family law judge assigned to Grazzini-Rucki case. Previous connection to Knutson while working in the Senate.

*Has an emotional breakdown after meeting David Rucki, flees to the bathroom to splash cold water on himself in order to compose himself.

*Contracted to write political commentary for the Star Tribune then radically shifts focus to cover Grazzini-Rucki case, at a time that case was already being covered by a well-known reporter.

* Admitted has no prior interest in investigating missing children when becomes focused on Grazzini-Rucki case.

*Interfering in active police investigation while covering Grazzini-Rucki case for Star Tribune. One example – speaking to a witness, who was sought for questioning by police, and influencing her testimony before the police were able to talk with her.

*Attaches himself exclusively to David Rucki at all court hearings.

*Coverage of Grazzini-Rucki case is one sided, always supportive of David Rucki. Suppresses documentation and evidence that is contrary to the narrative he pushes.

*Lying, exaggerating or distorting information about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold, and supporters.

*Exclusively focuses on Grazzini-Rucki case and no other case involving family court issues.

*Devoted a blog to coverage of Grazzini-Rucki case in a similar fashion to previous blogs he created to attack political opponents. The public is not given all the facts or evidence available in the case.

*Brodkorb’s blog is the only blog that has not been threatened with legal action by David Rucki to stop reporting on the Grazzini-Rucki case.

*Brodkorb’s blog is the only blog that has not been criticized or threatened with legal action by Judge Karen Asphaug, and Dakota County, for its coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case.

*The Carver County Corruption blog was shut down after Rucki and his high buck attorney, Marshall Tanick, threatened legal action against the blog owner. When clicking on old links to Carver County Corruption, the site opens to Brodkorb’s blog devoted to the Grazzini-Rucki case.

*Allison Mann, paralegal with Elliott Law Office, contributing author to Brodkorb’s blog

*Brodkorb’s work and efforts serve only to promote David Rucki’s interests.

More Soon…

 

 

David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

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

David Rucki (Fox 9)

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

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

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

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

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

Rucki’s Sob Story: Fact or Fiction?

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

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

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

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

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

The Paper Divorce Scam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge David L Knutson

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Sided Evidentiary Hearing

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

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

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

Rucki: From Riches to Rags

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

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

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

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

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

Consider This:

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

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

Rucki’s property in Farmington (movoto.com)

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

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

Rucki’s Lakeville property (Zillow.com)

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

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

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

Judge David L Knutson

Keep on Truckin’

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Public Domain: pixaby.com

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