Missing Rucki Sisters Found: But Is That a Good Thing?

Hope Loudon Headshot


Who is Trying to Silence Filmmaker and Judicial Watchdog Bill Windsor, Currently Held in County Jail?

Reposted from Health Impact News


Filmmaker Bill Windsor of “Lawless America” is currently being held in Ada County Jail in Idaho on a $4.1 million bail. To whom is he a threat?

by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News

Filmmaker Bill Windsor has been in the process of producing a film called “Lawless America” since 2005. It is a film project which exposes the corruption in the American judicial system. He currently has over 1200 videos in his YouTube channel of testimonials from American citizens who have experienced corruption in the judicial system first hand.

Windsor was detained in Texas in October of 2014, and held in jail for over 50 days before being released in December of 2014. He is 66 years old, and claims this is the first time he was ever arrested and detained, and previously had never been charged with a crime. He states he has never used drugs, and is a “non-violent law-abiding citizen.” He has filed numerous lawsuits across the country, including a couple of cases where he claims he was attacked by “cyberstalkers” who allegedly want to discredit his work.

After being released from jail in Texas, he started a “road-trip” and blogged twice a day, once in the morning, and once at night, to let everyone know he was still free. The blog posts stopped on February 19th. Health Impact News and other alternative news media began a search for Mr. Windsor, and found that he had been incarcerated in Ada County jail in Boise, Idaho on February 19th.

Health Impact News spoke with Bill Windsor from Ada County Jail this past weekend, and he wants us to covey to everyone that he is “OK.” He stated that he is currently being held on a $4.1 million bond.

– See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/who-is-trying-to-silence-filmmaker-and-judicial-watchdog-bill-windsor-currently-held-in-county-jail/#sthash.TCThOt1G.dpuf

Ya Can’t Win for Losin!

Image Courtesy of Stuart Miles @ FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image Courtesy of Stuart Miles @ FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Charging Battered Mothers With “Failure To Protect”: Still Blaming The Victim

Fordham Urban Law Journal
Volume 27, Issue 3 1999 Article

Domestic violence harms children and families. In the past several years, efforts to recognize this harm have led to the passage of new state laws that allow for concurrent criminal and family court jurisdiction in domestic violence cases, mandate arrest in domestic violence situations and require courts to consider domestic violence as a factor in custody decisions. Unfortunately, the heightened awareness of the harm domestic violence causes children has also resulted in a punitive policy towards battered women in the child welfare system. Increasingly in New York City, abuse and neglect proceedings are brought against battered mothers. Their children are removed from them, and the only allegation is abused upon their children’s exposure to domestic violence. This approach has the result of discouraging battered mothers from seeking the services they need to escape domestic violence and often causes further harm to children and families. Charging battered mothers with “failure to protect” implies that they are neglecting their children, because they did not prevent the violence. It places blame upon the mother, the primary target of the violence, for the actions of the abuser. The mother is accused of exposing her children to violence when the exposure is caused by its perpetrator. Ensuring full accountability of the batterer for his actions is one of the central recommendations of this article. This Article advocates a policy and practice that does not punish battered mothers for the risks to their children’s safety caused by the batterer. A policy that more effectively addresses the safety needs of both victim, the child and the battered mother is suggested. It recommends that the institutional players in this system- the Administration for Children’s Service, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Division- create a structure that places culpability on the batterer and ensures safe and stable environments for children and non-abusive parents.

Continue Reading: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2011&context=ulj

MN Rogue Psychologists/Therapists


Image Courtesy of Ambro @ FreeDIgitalPhotos.net

“Parental Alienation Syndrome”

Rogue Psychologists/Therapists such as Paul Reitman, James Gilbertson, and others have been allowed to “infiltrate the family courts” via the Social Early Neutral Evaluation (SENE) roster to overlay what is by its very nature an unsubstantiated “bogus diagnosis” on what cannot be diagnosed. One cannot diagnose a good parent or use a diagnosis to determine or deny a parent custody.  Because even if some mental illness exists, under the Civil Rights Act that parents cannot be discriminated against on the basis of some real or perceived mental disability.  The big problem currently in MN is Parental Alienation Syndrome-PAS which is tantamount to Voodoo, yet our courts even at the appellate level seem to embrace PAS. Educating our courts about the true nature of PAS and to reject such “PAS-voodoo” is essential. Kim Bukstein, MN Civil Rights Advocate      

A SENE is  a voluntary process parents may choose to participate in when they disagree about custody or parenting issues. The ENE is used in divorce cases as well as in custody cases, and can also be used for post-decree disputes. It is an alternative dispute resolution process similar to mediation.

What is “Parental Alienation Syndrome

Appeals Court Judge Issues Absurd Decision (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case)   Excerpts Below:

Judge Knutson refused to hold a hearing or to even schedule one. Minnesota Statutes § 589.29 is not applicable.

The habeas corpus statute is useless for Sandy and all other Minnesotans because of a very stupid appeals court judge and a very corrupt district court judge. The legislature may as well not have passed a law to protect citizens from wrongfully losing a liberty interest.

At the hearing on September 7, 2012, Judge Knutson declared that Sandy had the condition of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). He based this declaration on the reports of two whacko psychologists, Dr. Paul Reitman and Dr. James Gilbertson. In August, 2012, at the request of father’s lawyer, Judge Knutson appointed Dr. Reitman as an “expert” on PAS. Dr. Reitman was paid by the children’s father, a millionaire businessman who has an extensive history of domestic violence. Dr. Reitman reported this finding even though he had met with Sandy and her children for only about one-half hour. He did not conduct any evaluations or administer any psychological tests. PAS is widely discredited. “Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, the term is still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children’s fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations.” American Psychological Society Task Force Report 40. “PAS as a scientific theory has been excoriated b legitimate researchers across the nation.” Dr. Paul J. Fink, past President of the American Psychiatric Association. “The scientific status of PAS is, to be blunt, nil.” Emery, Otto & Donohue (2005) PAS is “probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I’ve seen in the field in all my time.” Professor Jon Conte, a leading expert on child sexual abuse. “The theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community.” NCJFCJ Custody Guidelines, p.24 “PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association.” National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse/National District Attorneys Association.

Continue Reading: http://carvercountycorruption.com/2013/04/30/appeals-court-judge-issues-absurd-decision/

Dakota County MN Judge David L. Knutson/Case of Grazzini-Rucki

Below are comments on the post above from Investigative Blogger Victoria Englund-Let’s Get Honest Blog.  Victoria has analyzed and written about Family and “Concilliation” Courts, Operations, Practices and the History of how these Courts have developed.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)

Generally speaking, the AFCC  is favorable to (abusive) fathers’ rights, and the industries of supervised visitation, parent education, and of course as much custody evaluation as possible. A related organization NACC (based in Colorado) tries to get a Guardian ad-Litum (GAL) appointed wherever. From what I can tell, the GALs are rarely neutral

  1. In all of these groups, some of the money is made and control established through the trainings. Continuing legal education-CLE-GAL training etc can be written off
  2. The presence in any jurisdiction of a “Conciliation court” and with it “Conciliation Code” (usually at state level) generally means that any “rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer” is a moot point — because that courtroom (and presiding judge) BY LAW grabs jurisdiction and decides to order all kinds of services; a.k.a. “fees for friends.” The goal of the AFCC (ca. 1963 founded) is to transform the language of criminal law into a behavioral health paradigm, which is for control and profit.

Conciliation is about “reconciliation” (co-parenting, allegedly) and is not interested in criminal matters. We need to recognize this; it happened when no-fault divorce replaced actual criminal matters as a cause of divorce across the country, ca. 1970s.

Quick look on James Gilbertson (the Doctor).

Here he is standing by a man who tried to kill his wife by hitting her over the head with a board, as follows:

Stuckmayer sentenced to 90 months in prison

Before sentencing, Morrison County Assistant Attorney Todd Kosovich said Stuckmayer’s mistakes were having an affair, deciding to kill Natalie and intending to kill by hitting her on the head. “The defense wants a reduction in sentencing, but the victim was treated with particular cruelty when she was left on the ground for 20 – 40 minutes, when Stuckmayer pretended to call 911 and when he pretended to faint. Plus, this act was committed in the presence of a child. A good father? That’s a stretch of the definition,” he said.

The recommended sentence for first degree attempted murder is 180 months. Kosovich said that due to mitigating factors, he would ask for 90 months.

“To sentence Stuckmayer to less than 90 months would cheapen the value of life and reward him for not killing Natalie. He must pay his due,” Kosovich said.

After he was sentenced, Stuckmayer spoke to the court on his own behalf. At one point, he turned around and told Natalie he loved her.

~ ~ ~ ~The wife is talking “God” and all — who probably spared her life. Hope she’ll take precautions in the future. Here’s what Gilbertson said at the pre-sentencing hearing: “The subject of probation came up during the pre-sentencing hearing. When evaluating someone for possible probation, Gilbertson said he rated them in a low, medium or high risk tier.

“Kevin is rated low risk, statistically,” he said. “He doesn’t have a history of rebellion, counter culture, rubbing others the wrong way or not  making connections with others. Any of these would go against a recommendation of probation.”

Gilbertson said Stuckmayer had always been a law-abiding person, pleased others, was respectful and a follower. He was not anti-authority. Gilbertson didn’t think there was anything which would derail him in the future. Several friends and family on both Kevin’s and Natalie’s side, testified that he was a model father, great friend and good citizen. Other members of the families testified he was not to be trusted.”

More on Gilbertson (also see Google Scholar)

In the Matter of the Welfare of M.W.W., Child. [M.W., natural father …law.justia.com › … › Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions › August, 1996 Aug 6, 1996 – … (2) attend weekly therapy sessions, (3) undergo urinalysis (UA) testing, (4) abide … did complete the court-ordered evaluation with Dr. James Gilbertson who …. and could not rebuild his life towards reunification with his son. In January 1992, appellant did complete the court-ordered evaluation with Dr. James Gilbertson who recommended that appellant undergo a professionally guided and coordinated therapeutic effort to make his personal life more ordered.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: CMS and MDS … – Justia law.justia.com › … › October, 2007 ECFE also indicated that father “needs more in-depth therapeutic parenting services. … In November 2005, Dr. James H. Gilbertson examined father. …. services to meet the needs of the child and the child’s family” and to reunify the family.

Here’s an appeal. The mother remarried and around 2002, kids 9 & 10, they started resisting visiting time with their Dad. She allowed them to skip (probably a mistake) and along comes Gilbertson to correct the situation: http://mn.gov/lawlib/archive/ctapun/0412/opa040197-1214.htm

If you read this one carefully (and the timeline), here’s a guy who had a string of crimes, then raped his 11-year old daughter in 1989 (she got an STD), and somehow was out on parole, and acting up AGAIN within a year (i.e., more crimes in 1994, apparently he was paroled after doing 3 years for this crime).

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=in%20mnco%2020100622293.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr&SizeDisp=7 They try to civilly commit this guy in 2002, and there were two “pre-petition screeners” who said he wasn’t a high risk. It doesn’t say so there, but apparently one was Dr. Gilbertson: It goes on with more horrific crimes (false imprisonment of some more minors, impregnating one of them….)

“In 1996, while still on parole for his 1989 offense against his daughter, appellant committed his third and fourth sex offenses that resulted in a conviction. According to the complaint, appellant held two females, ages 15 and 16, at his trailer for approximately one week, providing them with marijuana, threatening them, and repeatedly having sexual intercourse with the 15-year-old, once while the 16-year-old was in bed with them. The 15-year-old became pregnant. Appellant pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct and solicitation of a child under age 18 to engage in prostitution, and received a 90-month prison sentence.

“In January 2002, Dakota County filed its first petition to civilly commit appellant. After the two pre-petition screeners concluded that appellant did not meet the future harm criteria for commitment as SDP or SPP, the petition was dismissed. In February 2002, appellant was released from prison as a Level 3 sex offender and placed on supervised release.”

__________ Here’s one of a cold-blooded murder (by a father of a man, at the dining room table). Of the experts involved, Gilbertson and one other reversed, and found that he didn’t know it was wrong to do so. The trial court didn’t take their opinion:  http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/InsanityOdell.htm\

“In the trial court’s extensive findings of fact and verdict, it carefully considered the evidence presented by all four experts and determined the believability and weight to be given to each expert’s testimony. Accordingly, the court decided to give greater weight to the opinions of Drs. Farnsworth and Kienlen because their reports were more consistent with appellant’s behavior and belief system. The court could not reconcile the opinions of Drs. Gilbertson and Erdmann with several facts of the case; namely, that on April 23, 2000, immediately before and after the murder, appellant was able to communicate and interact with others normally. Further, the court questioned some of the underpinnings of Dr. Erdmann’s revised analysis and found that in his first and second opinions Dr. Erdmann had relied on similar facts to support divergent conclusions. Finally, the court concluded that appellant had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the murder, he was suffering from a severe mental illness, but that appellant had failed to prove that because of his mental illness he did not understand the nature of his act or that the act constituting the offense was wrong.”

This is a quick search. Just checking — but is this the same James Gilbertson who doesn’t believe this mother should see her own children? Let’s get real about the relative level of risks!

Christmas Release of Teresa Guidice

Teresa Guidice Danbury Correctional Institution


Real Housewives Star Teresa Guidice was released from the Dansbury Correctional Institution in Connecticut on December 23rd, 2015.


According to USA Today, Guidice and her husband, Joe, pleaded guilty in March 2014 to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and three types of bankruptcy fraud, after racking up $5 million in mortgages and construction loans. Joe Giudice, 43, also pleaded guilty to failing to file a tax return for 2004.

  “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson~

Regardless of what you think about Teresa Guidice, her crime is less than what we allow our officials in government to commit everyday!  Money laundering, racketeering, bribery, extortion, embezzlement and kickbacks to name just a few. We have had a criminal government for so long that they’re just doing whatever they please and the public is allowing it! 

Money and resources are being diverted by corrupt officials instead of being channeled for the benefit of citizens; (HHS & DOJ Grants to Court connected programs).Children are being taken from parents, citizens are being robbed and lifestyle changes are being forced through court orders, government licensing, fees, taxes, regulations, laws and uniform acts based on extremely tyrannical principles.

Media dishonesty, propaganda and disinformation has conditioned us to accept lies &  egregious human rights violations and the 2 party tyranny is successfully creating animosity towards each other so we can never reach critical mass and rally together against this oppression.

Maybe 2016 will be the year that we stand up and object to bad government, corrupt public officials and overthrow the status quo! What say you?

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty” ~Thomas Jefferson~  


Below is information that was submitted to Amy Klobuchar in 2011 on a custody case in St. Cloud, MN and the response from her office. At that time, she was a member of  the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. The request was for an investigation, not legal advice or counsel.

Courtesy U.S. Senate Historical Office

November  18th, 2011

Ms. Klobuchar,

I am writing to make you aware of a St. Cloud, MN custody case/trial in progress that needs immediate investigation. The attorneys, custody evaluators, mediator and the judge, have and are continuing to demonstrate misconduct, ethical violations, and blatant abuse of power and authority. I am writing to you due to your involvement in the Judiciary Committee and the goal of ensuring equal justice for all Americans.

I am a friend of the respondent and am coming forward as the client fears that disclosure could lead to a negative outcome in the child custody decision. I cannot continue to watch this family go through one more day of trauma at the hands of the attorneys and the judge.

Background on the case: A Stipulation and Order for Change of Custody was filed by the biological father on 10/07/2009 with a motive that was extremely transparent. The initial hearing was 12/18/2009 and it was determined that the plaintiff had submitted sufficient affidavits which, if presumed to be true, presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The plaintiff was unable to produce any evidence to support his claims and the respondent had substantial contradictory evidence which should have prompted a move for immediate dismissal of the case. Instead, the respondent and the plaintiff have been led down a corrupt path by the legal professionals involved and they are going on their third year of involvement in the legal system.

It’s not difficult to see that this is definitely based on the money that has and can be generated—not facts, evidence or “best interest of the child.” It’s clear that this is a profitable criminal enterprise that is taking place and that due to the lack of regulation, none of the professionals involved are concerned about facing any consequences.  I have attempted to help the respondent by contacting numerous attorneys, however, like the Penn State scandal, everyone has turned a blind eye to the abuse.

The first 2 day trial was held in October, the second in November and the third trial dates are scheduled for January 11 & 12, 2012. The entire case is a charade and the legal abuse is causing severe emotional and financial harm to these families. The respondent’s parents are paying all legal fees and have spent well over $100,000 to save their grandchildren. The plaintiff is also spending money which could have been used for financial support of his daughter. The custody evaluator alone was $28,000.

Excerpts from the Habeas Corpus Website

It’s clear that the legal professionals involved know that there are no better litigants to exploit than a battered mother desperately trying to protect her abused children and a crazed batterer frantic to harm them—both driven to do and spend whatever it takes.

No decent family law attorney would risk his reputation—or career—by helping a criminal (batterer) commit more crime against his victims—especially when the victims are children. And batterers know this. Which is why batterers retain attorneys willing to represent criminals and engage in criminal conduct. And criminally inclined attorneys know exploitation is exceptionally easy and lucrative whenever the litigants are “right.”

Batterers are criminals. They have no evidence against their victims. But their victims have ample evidence against them.

A batterer would get nowhere without a criminally inclined attorney. It is the criminally inclined attorneys who provides the criminal contacts a batterer needs: a corrupt evaluator and a corrupt judge willing to rubberstamp a battered mother and abused child’s rights away. It is these criminal individuals who are willing to further traumatize abused children and mothers by aiding and abetting criminal batterers–as long as the price is right!

The formula for harming battered mothers via Family Court is fairly pat: Either parent files a custody action (abusive father or battered, protective mother).

Batterer hires a criminally inclined attorney who provides access to other court criminals (e.g. corrupt evaluator and judge). Battered mother may not have an attorney or may also have a criminally inclined attorney. Many family law attorneys aim to bleed clients financially: there is no “best interest of the client” or “child” or even fear of repercussion from the BAR since it exists to protect its members—as do all professional organizations affiliated with the court.

But even if the battered mother was fortunate enough to have an honorable attorney–the problem is her batterer doesn’t. The battered mother offers evidence of the batterer’s abuse to the COURT.

Corrupt JUDGE then orders battered mother to undergo evaluation via BATTERER’S EVALUATOR. Battered mother ordered to submit all evidence to BATTERER’S EVALUATOR. Corrupt [batterer’s] EVALUATOR suppresses all evidence against batterer. In this case, the Judge is aware of the plaintiff’s abuse due to all of the previous court documents from 2003.

Corrupt EVALUATOR recommends COURT deny battered mother custody and child support via fraudulent report. Corrupt JUDGE rubber-stamps. Corrupt EVALUATOR recommends COURT order battered mother to Paid Supervised Visitation ($200/hr) payable to Corrupt [batterer’s] EVALUATOR OR BUSINESS.

Corrupt JUDGE rubberstamps. Battered mother then ordered to pay COURT and corrupt EVALUATOR for their crimes committed against her and her children. Public, Private & Non-profit ENTITIES required to respond, don’t. Battered mother is forced into poverty, made homeless, often jailed for inability to pay CRIMINALS. Battered mother’s parental rights TERMINATED.  

There are many facets to this case, however the main goal is to stop any further involvement of the plaintiff and the respondent in the Courts.

Thank you for your review of this information and I look forward to getting the assistance that is needed to bring this case to a close and to help begin to restore the respondent’s life and the lives of her children.

The 7 day custody modification trial began in October 2011 and concluded in February 2012. On May 25, 2012, the Judge modified prior orders, awarded custody to the father and required that mother have paid supervised visitation for 2 hours per week.  (Just as predicted).

The decision was primarily based on the notion that the child has not bonded with the father. The child herself however, has throughout this case expressed an intense desire to not be with the father and wishes to be with mom.


What’s interesting is that just 4 months later, Senator Klobuchar is pushing for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and attended the Stearns County Domestic Violence Partnership event in St. Cloud. Senator Klobuchar stated, “Domestic-violence courts like the one in Stearns County are not only critical to assisting victims and bringing offenders to justice, but they also help put an end to the cycle of violence in homes. I worked hard to secure resources for the Stearns County program, and its success … is proof that with innovative solutions we can improve the current system to better address the needs of victims and reduce violence.”

Why We Must Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act Now

Stearns County Domestic Violence Partnership Discusses Solutions with U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar

During my eight years as County Attorney, I saw first-hand how domestic abuse destroyed families. In these difficult economic times, victims should never feel forced to choose between personal safety and financial stability. I am committed to ensuring that women and children have the resources they need to protect themselves from violence, leave abusive situations, and hold their abusers accountable.” http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/public-safety

One would think that as a former prosecutor, Senator Klobuchar would know that the family law system has been developed to reframe Domestic Violence (DV) as pathological (not criminal) and that the professionals are incentivized to treat the entire family and persuade everyone involved that abuse isn’t dangerous, it’s just a dispute. I would think she also knows that grants through the Dept. of Health and Human Services are used in custody switching schemes to transfer custody from protective mothers to violent and abusive fathers.

The bottom line is that unless we have accountability for the Family Court actions and where the money is being spent, THIS HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO GET WORSE!




Bold Reforms Proposed in Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Petitions For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus