Inside Story Of The Rigged High-Profile Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Criminal Case


5 thoughts on “Inside Story Of The Rigged High-Profile Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Criminal Case

  1. Michelle MacDonald was not Sandra ‘ s attorney for the criminal trial. She recommended Grigsby. Even if these hard to understand allegations are true at worst she recommended poorlu. She was a potential witness in the trial. If something as simple as that is inaccurate how can any of this post be taken seriously?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Post Technicalities: The first two links above lead to the message “server error.” Looks like the material up to and including “>” should be removed. However, for those two links to disciplinary proceedings on Grigsby, the one labeled “default” probably wouldn’t lead direct to the intended material, might be worth re-checking.

    There is a link directly above the paragraph referring to Michelle MacDonald’s disciplinary proceeding 8/10/2016 — but that’s not a link to anything regarding her. Could you supply that link if one exists?

    I did read one of the functional links (all the way through) and noticed that Grigsby’s first years as an attorney (passed the bar in 1999), already showed a character indicator regarding his business practices.

    – It takes, I am sure, a basic intelligence and competence to pass the bar in any state, and somewhere in there is the ability to reason from given facts, knowledge of basic rules, and making the case between right and wrong on behalf of clients.

    – Failure to set up his own business account while leasing an office, and then calling net income “gross income” when talking to the IRS, and simply not providing a paper trail, dodging coughing it up when asked, and misrepresentations, etc. — in a different field of practice, such a person would not continue to get work unless they needed to work with people who were of similar mind — we don’t want OUR paper trails showing, either.

    “Suspension from the practice of law for 60 days is warranted for lawyer who failed
    to file individual income tax returns, failed to report income to taxing authorities, failed to maintain practice-related books and records, failed to use written retainer agreements in connection with nonrefundable fees, made misrepresentations to the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation.”

    I recommend other Red Herring Alert readers go through the links provided and see what a state of affairs it is even trying to get one lawyer who doesn’t feel like playing by the rules suspended for even a year. An attempt was made, but failed, to get Grigsby suspended for a full year.

    As this is a public defender, I would start asking for the pay stubs for the last several years.
    I have also been posting for several years now on other money which is circulating through the family court situations, nationally, which is funded by the pubic (through federal government, specifically through Department of HHS) which is SPECIFICALLY designed to reward the STATE for achieving gender-based increases in noncustodial parenting time, i.e., for changing the outcomes of custody proceedings which are properly under state, NOT federal jurisdiction. …. The federal agencies involved, Congressmen and women involved (both US and local), and the judges all KNOW that the family courts are not under federal jurisdiction.

    What those categories of professionals DO know that the public DOESN”T (by and large) know, or I should say by now, apparently wish to know, is about the federal grants prejudicial AGAINST custodial mothers, especially single (not re-married after separation) mothers of minor children. This puts a conflict between public policy nationwide, and state laws regarding rights of individuals “locally” (state level). Conflict of this nature leads to confusion at the local level.

    Even with the most pristine behavior, if citizens demanded all existing rights as shown above, to defend themselves without prejudice, the laws criminalizing parental interference (with an affirmative defense, it seems, in Minnesota) would still be on the books in conflict with the access and visitation grants series ($10M/year since 1996) and marriage/fatherhood ( http://HMRF.ACF.HHS.GOV describes, and they are searchable at the (not completely reliable, but still a start) database http://TAGGS.HHS>GOV (Use advanced search and — after looking them up — select on Program CFDA numbers, such as 93086 for marriage/fatherhood promotion, or 93597 for access and visitation).

    The amounts directly granted to set up professions which outsource decisionmaking to professionals is only part of the problem caused by this policy; by directing federal grants under those programs, 93597 directly to a state agency, and 93086 could be to a government entity or directly to a nonprofit in OR out of state, this allows those nonprofits to receive — and they certainly do — more similar-purpose money from large, private foundations, including Ford, Annie E. Casey, Rockefeller, MacArthur, and some of the larger community foundations in any geography. I DOCUMENT ThIS ON MY BLOG (recent series in Connecticut. and I have a lot on Minnesota in there too). MANY (not just “some”) of these recipient nonprofits are behaving far worse in their fiscal reporting than Attorney Grigsby was in the first few years of his practice, as shown above). And the amount collectively, and potentially in any specific location, is far larger than any single attorney’s work might represent. It’s the network which is the issue.

    So potentially in any case, such as Grazzini-Rucki here, where we already know there has been a motive to control family trust funds, some questions about illicit mortgage activity on the family home where the Rucki trucking business was registered (as I recall, and I did look at the mortgage-washing documents previously posted), but in addition just by virtue of Sandra being a mother, there is a more than prejudicial social climate IN THE FAMILY COURTS and WITHIN THE STATE against mothers who have reported abuse retaining custody of their children until those children finish growing up. Those cases get “churned.” Mothers are being prosecuted for parental interference, but are fathers being prosecuted for parental interference to the same level and in the same numbers?

    It might seem that because of the domestic violence organizations in the states (Minnesota has at least one state-wide coalition, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, and a recent spin-off (but the name’s been in use for years) Battered Women’s Justice Programs. The DV cartel (which it is, taken as a whole), also on the federal dole, has agreed to sponsoring supervised visitation and batterers intervention programming as professions, while the HHS “HMRF” grants sponsor the concept of “fatherhood practitioner” (and organizations by that name are also set up, and similar names, nationwide, or statewide). CAROLYN RICE was ordered into supervised visitation, right?

    Once these are set up, there is a need to keep the warm bodies flowing, and there is every opportunity for corrupt and conflict-of-interest practices because the nonprofits are involved. The nonprofits can be run by lawyers, judges, or retired judges, custody evaluators — almost anyone. The nonprofits also set up private, collegial associations and communications in general which might easily affect ANYONE walking into a custody or divorce proceedings in unpredictable ways. They can also facilitate money-laundering through them.

    At this point, I’m disgusted and discouraged with the whole process, as well as pretty dis-illusioned about people’s willingness to face the larger reality of what traffic has been coming down the road, for two decades now as regards welfare-reform-related issues, but longer, as regards privatization of governments, attempting to internationally align ALL public institutions under the UN/UNESCO model, regardless of major differences between involved countries (for example, the US COnstitution doesn’t endorse socialism, or a monarchy, and this country does not issue titles of Sir, Lord, Duke, Duchess, Earl, Baron, etc. as do some of the others there is an attempt to align us with.)

    One thing people could do is to at a minimum protest the HHS being used to undermine state laws regarding divorce and custody, to indirectly set up a national religion (patriarchal in character) and if they have a little time to invest, justify this on the level of lying, stealing, and cheating as shown on the tax returns, or missing tax-returns, fo the tax-exempt recipients of these public revenue streams. We could also demand that the USDOJ (which handles the VAWA-authorized, that is “Violence Against Women Act”) grants as appropriated by Congress — put up a decent database making them searchable, so US Citizens could call in ones that have been found mis-managing, or failing to provide services while continuing to take the money.

    etc. Sorry for the long comment; a lot on my mind otherwise these days.


  3. Looking around LPRB.MNCOURTS.Gov, I see you can issue a written request for disciplinary history of an attorney. The very recent complaint against MacDonald shows up as pending on search of her by name here: Other than the case number, date, that it’s pending, and her Lawyer Specs, it says little. The boilerplate text on this page (or after I clicked on “Details”) reads:

    Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), only information relating to public matters pending in the Supreme Court and public matters decided by the Supreme Court is available to the public. Information relating to private discipline, dismissed complaints and pending complaints is not available to the public except as authorized by Rule 20, RLPR.

    The material on Grigsby, however, can be viewed, at least what’s posted. Links to “View the Petition” and “View the Referee Findings” are not active. By searching that above link, the case numbers shown would be active links to double-spaced, uploaded information on the ruling. Surprisingly, these contain no date-stamp, signature verifications, are not submitted on any particular form (or pleading paper, when it comes to the Supreme Court Opinion), and except for where they appear on a public courtside, contain no particular forms of validation of their authority. This is a little disconcerting when one considers that there have been issues with whether or not the public, electronically available records (including court documents) represent the same as the case files.**

    Case Number Date Determination
    A11-976 10/23/2012 Reinstatement ==> the three dissents make interesting reading….
    A11-976 07/11/2012 Suspension
    A07-688 04/16/2009 Suspension


  4. This comment like the others, is “thinking aloud,” if it’s helpful to other readers concerned about the same cases or issues, pls. let me know.

    RE, post’s Trivia Question #1: Which of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s attorneys failed to give Sandra Grazzini-Rucki her electronic discovery/evidence before they went on vacation? Hint: The vacation was soon after Sandra’s 02/24/2016 interim conditional release from the Ramsey Co. Workhouse, wasn’t it? It was, wasn’t it?

    Was it?: A. Short-time criminal defense attorney Michelle MacDonald B. So-called defender of the constitution Michelle MacDonald C. Supreme court candidate Michelle MacDonald Trivia Question #1 Answer: A, B, C…

    Has evidence of this been posted on the blog? If so, could a link be provided, or if not, is someone willing and able to post it, as this is a claim of what looks like unprofessional practice on MacDonald’s part, and a fairly serious one.

    FYI, I had a trust and estate attorney who had (without my permission and over some objections) apparently engaged in casual conversations with the (opposing) trust and estate attorney while NOT representing me, attempt to withhold return of my file until my bill was paid in full. Having learned this on a Friday afternoon, and being at that time in touch with a more knowledgeable (out of state) individual on client’s rights vis a vis former attorneys, the out-of-state person placed a single, short phone call asking to verify whether she was indeed going to withhold my case file (non-criminal FYI) or to that effect, and within one hour, I received a call back that said attorney had suddenly changed his/her mind — however, the case file wasn’t local, and I’d have to wait a few days. I eventually got it back; it looks to be fairly complete.

    Years earlier (and in the matter in which my children had been stolen on a court-ordered overnight visitation, with law enforcement facilitating this in DIRECT opposition to an existing court order, thus participating themselves in parental interference….) I had an attorney specially-appearing for this issue in family court. I had faxed a LOT of material and brought in supporting material to this (high-profile) individual at the time. I was prevented from getting the case file back by a gatekeeper in the office until it had been “scrubbed” of nearly every thing I’d submitted, and consisted basically of things I could’ve gotten for free from the case file on-line.

    Too bad this attorney, like many other family and trust attorneys nationwide, and locally (when they get to talking in public about poor decision-making in the family courts) failed to reference that an organization that goes by the acronym “AFCC” actually exists and had been exposed years earlier in the press and on-line as having itself failed to set up its own private, business bank account instead operating out of the county court-house and using a County EIN# for private business. That would’ve been helpful information to search on-line at the time, instead of (as most people in my situation were), reading up on domestic violence, custody, and rules of court, which in practice have almost become a “joke” as to taking them seriously. While I believe rules of court, and laws SHOULD be withheld, when they are not, there is often a financial reason why. That it doesn’t affect which attorneys get disbarred, and which don’t. does not exactly make sense now.

    Interesting the articles that show up on a simple search of Mr. Grigsby’s name:

    The client wasn’t pro se at the time, as Grigsby claimed, but later proceeded ‘pro se” an won on appeal, it says, because of double-jeopardy. For a drunk driving conviction:

    July 2012 in the ABA Journal, with “Hat tip to Legal Profession Blog” (link within that article) “Suspended Defense Lawyer Gets 60 days for Ghost-writing “pro se” appeal brief, by Martha Neil.

    Suspended from practice for 60 days on April 16, 2009 for unrelated conduct, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney scrambled to find alternative counsel for approximately 30 clients.

    But Stephen Vincent Grigsby couldn’t find another lawyer to write an appellate brief the next month for J.R., a client convicted, after a mistrial to which he didn’t consent, in a retrial of a driving-under-the-influence case. So Grigsby wrote the brief himself (apparently without charging for his work), signed J.R.’s name to the “pro se” pleading, timely filed it and forwarded it, with an explanatory letter, to J.R., according to a Minnesota Supreme Court opinion (PDF) filed Wednesday.

    Since Grigsby had sent a letter to J.R. weeks earlier explaining that he had been suspended from practice and could no longer represent him, J.R. was an ex-client at this point, the court said. However, it disagreed with Grigsby’s claim that he had done nothing wrong and his argument that attorney ethical rules, if they prohibited his conduct, could also provide him with a justification defense for doing what was necessary to protect his ex-client’s interests in what amounted to an emergency situation.

    The court found that Grigsby had violated legal ethics rules by drafting an appellate brief while suspended, by signing J.R.’s name to the brief and by falsely stating to the appellate court that J.R. was pro se. (An assistant county attorney assigned to defend the DUI case conviction on appeal suspected that it had been ghostwritten and brought it to the attention of disciplinary authorities, the opinion notes.)

    Grigsby had other options, such as seeking an extension of time from the appeals court or an advisory legal ethics opinion about what he should do, the supreme court said. However, it imposed a 60-day additional suspension, rather than the nine months recommended by a referee, noting that Grigsby had not applied for reinstatement as he waited to see what the outcome of a lengthy legal ethics investigation would be. J.R., who proceeded in the appeal pro se, won a reversal of his conviction on double jeopardy grounds, the opinion notes.

    Found one of those “Watchdog” sites naming specific public officials (by state). Generally I’m not in favor of such sites as the most effective, absent talking about the “macroeconomic” factors (such as who pays whom in public office, including whom on the professional disciplinary boards), but FYI this ‘‘ summarizes the same: (set to Grigsby’s page, check out the site though). ….

    My first comment (of 3 today on this post) mistakenly wrote “Battered Women’s Justice Programs” for “…..Project” which interesting situation is symptomatic of the evolving conditions of the family courts as dumping grounds for criminal behavior, but the State retains the option to go pursue criminal behavior in association with divorce cases “at will,” that is — when they feel like it.


  5. Why did you include a picture of a child support order in this article? And what did the order say?

    Michelle MacDonald’s recent complaint against her is complete b.s., it was filed by Judge David Knutson – who we all know is corrupt, and has zero credibility!

    An attorney complaint was filed against MacDonald in April 2014 with the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board by Judge David Knutson, it was posted online by Brodkorb and can be read here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s