Fletcher Long and Michael Volpe: Shocking Developments in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Jaw-Dropping show with Fletcher Long and Michael Volpe on the Grazzini-Rucki case reveals layers of corruption, abuse cover-up

Date: January 10, 2017

Listen Online: http://mixlr.com/iradiofreedom/showreel/iradiofreedom-on-mixlr-49/

Fletcher Long and Michael Volpe discuss a variety of topics that include:

1) Michael Brodkorb’s questionable involvement in the Grazzini-Rucki case; and close relationship with David Rucki. Michael Brodkorb is a political blogger and supporter of David Rucki, that has been following and publicly commenting on the Grazzini-Rucki case.

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Fletcher Long reads a provocative e-mail that he received from Brodkorb. Long says about the letter, “I never had a member of the news media make an editorial and rather impassioned plea on behalf of the subject of his story.”

And “This guy has lost his objectivity… His advocation of David Rucki was unseemly, off putting and unexpected…”

Michael Volpe responds that Brodkorb speaks as if he is David Rucki’s attorney or public relations person rather than an independent media person covering the story.

Brodkorb is fixated on the Grazzini-Rucki case, covering it exclusively and not covering any other case or other news story. Brodkorb says he attends all hearings and has read all publicly available documents. Yet Brodkorb’s coverage of the case omits mention of David Rucki’s criminal record, his violent behavior, and allegations of abuse raised against him.

Is Brodkorb really just a blogger or is something more going on??

Dakota County Judicial Center

Dakota County Judicial Center

2) Due Process Violations during the custody trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki (Sept 11-12, 2013), an incident where her attorney, Michelle MacDonald, was strapped in a wheelchair and forced to represent her. Sandra was told by a court officer that court was adjourned and held left (with her files) when Attorney MacDonald’s horrifying ordeal began.

Michelle MacDonald says about the incident,”I sued a judge in Federal court on behalf of a client for civil rights violations. (See Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, et al v. (Judge) David Knutson, United States District Court no. 0:13-CV-02477-SRN; and Petition for Writ to the United States Supreme Court, docket no. 15-220.)

The next day, that same judge made me participate as her attorney in a child custody trial — in handcuffs and a wheelchair, with no shoes, eye glasses, files or client — and missing children. So far, he has gotten away with it. I will make certain there is oversight, accountability and reform of our judicial system.”  Supreme Court Associate Justice 6, Michelle MacDonaldl

The court ordered issued from this outrageous custody ruling became the basis on which Sandra was later convicted for deprivation of parental rights.

Volpe states that judges in the appeals court continue to make excuses for Judge David Knutson, even as he breaks the law, which in turn, help Judge Knutson avoid responsibility for his actions.  “The reason why the Knutsons of the world can do this is because there are appeals court judges who look the other way when this kind of corruption happens.

3a12c-hickknutson02

Judge David Knutson (Source: Lion News)

3) Volpe and Long also analyzes a 99 page collection of documents posted on the “Justice for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Children” blog: druckipolicereports

The collection of documents includes records of David Rucki’s criminal history, protective orders filed against him, police reports regarding incidents of Rucki’s violent behavior,  documentation of stalking, photographs, and a letter written in support of Sandra by a witness to Rucki’s violent behavior. The information contained in the document spans 3 counties, and goes back more than 20 years; establishing a clear pattern of Rucki’s violent and threatening behavior.

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Within the documents, Volpe uncovers criminal records that connect Judge Karen Asphaug to David Rucki, who appeared as a defendant in her court, on two separate occasions to answer to charges.

On each case  Judge Asphaug ruled in Rucki’s favor in what Long says are “curious and extraordinary ways which would tend to suggest a bias in his favor”.

In another case, Rucki appeared before Judge Karen Asphaug as a criminal defendant for a violation for an order for protection; the order was filed by Sandra. Volpe argues that years later, in Sandra’s criminal case, Judge Karen Asphaug would not allow evidence of past abuse, and would not allow evidence of Rucki’s criminal record. Judge Asphaug benefited when the evidence was suppressed because her own involvement in prior cases could be concealed, and she could conceal her own knowledge of the abuse that occurred. After suppressing the evidence, Judge Asphaug then claims there is no evidence of abuse.

Long says Judge Asphaug should not be appointed to Sandra’s criminals case because she has too much intimate knowledge, including knowledge about the victim.

lawlesslakeville

A similar pattern has occurred with Judge David Knutson, who presided over a hearing in which a relative of Sandra’s filed a restraining order against Rucki after he threatened to kill him. Judge Knutson dismissed the order for protection, and later went on to preside over the Grazzini-Rucki family court case. Keep in mind that David Rucki personally asked Judge Knutson to be appointed to the family court case after he contest the original judgement and decree.

Judge Knutson was initially appointed to the criminal trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, where he set her bail at $1 million dollars. Judge Knuston got off the criminal case and appointed Judge Karen Asphaug to fill the vacancy.

This shows the level of corruption in this case…” Michael Volpe says about the two judges who had prior experience with David Rucki, always ruled in his favor, who were later instrumental in convicting ex-wife Sandra of criminal charges, and always ruling against her.

4) The outrageous complaint filed against Michelle MacDonald, filed by Judge Knutson who criticized MacDonald performance in court during the custody trial where he alone impeded her work. MacDonald is facing a 2 month suspension.

Listen to this valuable, and informative show! You will hear information on the Grazzini-Rucki case that major news outlets refuse to cover.

You will also be given valuable insights on the case that will deepen your understanding of the legal system, your rights and help you to identify an out of control judge.

“I’m Not Done Fighting…” Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Interview with Fletcher Long

Released from prison (on court supervised probation) Sandra bravely speaks out..sharing her story with Fletcher Long, and discussing never before heard details of her life, family court case and criminal trial.. and taking great risks to continue to expose family court corruption and abuses of judicial power amidst tremendous retaliation.

I think the big concern is that he (David Rucki) has been empowered to escalate even further, and that is my fear for my children and myself… “ Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Hear the riveting interview on The Long Version:

The Long Version with Fletcher Long

(Go to FROM THE ARCHIVES and then click on December 21, 2016 to hear the interview with Sandra)

The Fix: Grazzini-Rucki Case Discussed on “The Long Version”

According to host,  Fletcher Long, there are many ways the government can fix a trial – the justice system is designed to benefit, and profit the government. The fix discussed in this episode of “The Long Version” is the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial and the miscarriages of justice that happened in the family law case.

The Fix: the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Story” with Fletcher Long features guests, Michelle MacDonald and Michael Volpe.

Listen to “The Long Version with Fletcher Long” podcast: http://longversionw4j.com/podcasts

The opponent against you in the criminal trial is the government. The government pays the judge, he is a party in a criminal court. Exclusionary rules never benefit a defendant, they help the government win cases. The private citizens don’t pass rules of evidence. Rules of evidence are passed and adopted by Legislators, and Legislators work for the government. All the money flows from one entity and that entity is in that court.. it is the ultimate David and Goliath scenario, you are always and perpetually beating your head against a wall and that wall is the adversary in court.” – Fletcher Long

The Fix in the Grazzini-Rucki Criminal Trial

In the podcast, Fletcher Long and Guests discuss the elements of the Fix that are present in the way Dakota County mishandled the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial.

Including:

  • Judge Karen Asphaug did not allow jury to hear evidence that would give context to why the affirmative defense was being raised.
  • Evidence was excluded that would show why Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was afraid of ex-husband, David Rucki. Evidence was excluded that demonstrated Rucki’s predilection towards violence (evidence that Rucki had 3 prior protective orders filed against him was excluded, as well as CPS reports that investigated and documented abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children, and more).
  • Judge Asphaug only let certain pieces of information in so that the jury only heard one side of the story, that being told by Prosecution ( Kathryn Keena).
  • Judge Asphaug would not allow evidence in that would impeach testimony or refute allegations raised by the Prosecution. Long says that you have a right under the 6th amendment to confront your accuser. To deny a defendant the right to confront the government’s proof is fixing the trial to the government’s benefit.

Allegations that Judge Asphaug and Prosecutor Keena are working together, and working to exclude and discredit evidence are raised. Long states that when the Judge and the Prosecutor are working “in concert” or working together against a litigant, that gives the appearance to the jury that the defendant is guilty and eradicates the impartiality of the judge.

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Defendants also have a Constitutional right to call witnesses in order to raise a defense. Judge Asphaug did not allow several witnesses to be called.

Long also says that it is “prosecutorial misconduct” for Dakota County to insinuate that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is a bad mother, or is guilty of any crime, because she sought to call her two daughters as witnesses. Long comments, “It is not okay to say something that does suggest guilt DOES suggest guilt.” Long says that a defendant “is in a fight for their life” and has a right to raise a defense, and to call witnesses as part of that defense. Calling a witnesses does not suggest or prove either innocence or guilt, and is a crucial part of ensuring a fair trial.

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena

For thought – Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keen,a called the son N.R. as a witness, and was not subjected to similar speculation or accusation that she was harming a child.

Michael Volpe says:What this story is really is the story of an abuser who is being covered up by major parts of the State of Minnesota.

This is a very important discussion, to get the full benefit of what was discussed please visit and listen to The Long Version, podcast: The Long Version Podcast

Dakota Co. Courthouse