A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof. Proverbs 21:22 King James Version (KJV)
I’m not going to go through each and every successful strategy that I used to undermine the confidence in so-called law enforcement in lawless Dakota County, am I? Instead I’m going to start giving you the inside story of the internal struggles between Sandra and her so-called defense team, aren’t I? The so-called defense team is comprised of not one time but two time suspended attorney Stephen Grigsby and short-time criminal defense attorney – so-called defender of the constitution – and supreme court candidate Michelle MacDonald, isn’t it?
Lawyer License No: 0291973
Full Licensed Name: STEPHEN VINCENT GRIGSBY
City, State: MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Date Admitted to Minnesota Bar: 05/21/1999
Authorized to Practice?: YES
Case Number Date Determination
A11-976 10/23/2012 Reinstatement
A11-976 07/11/2012 Suspension
A07-688 04/16/2009 Suspension
Lawyer License No: 0182370
Full Licensed Name: MICHELLE LOWNEY MACDONALD
City, State: WEST ST. PAUL, MN
Date Admitted to Minnesota Bar: 09/11/1987
Authorized to Practice?: YES
Case Number Date Determination
A16-1282 08/10/2016 Pending
How do you know that I have the inside scoop? It’s simple, isn’t it? My audio recordings with Sandra, MacDonald and Grigsby will prove that I have the inside scoop, won’t they? They will, won’t they? It’s their word versus my audio recordings, right? That’s right, isn’t it?
In fact, I just spoke with Grigsby and MacDonald just yesterday, didn’t I? And Grigsby became very, very, very angry with me after I started asking him specific questions about the whereabouts of Sandra’s property, didn’t he? “What property,” you ask? Didn’t you know that your case files and your evidence are your property and not the property of the attorney?
Subject to certain exceptions, the general views of Opinion 13 are that: 1. File contents belong to the client and must be turned over to the client upon request. OPINION 13: COPYING COSTS By William J. Wernz, Director Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Reprinted from Bench & Bar of Minnesota (August 1989)
You see Sandra says that she doesn’t have all her files and all her evidence, doesn’t she? And, of course, Grigsby says she does, doesn’t he? He does, doesn’t he? So my audio recording has Grigsby saying all sorts of wild and outrageous things, doesn’t it? And one of those wild and outrageous things was that Sandra’s electronic files and her paper files weren’t her property, wasn’t it?
So how was Sandra able to prepare for her rigged case if she was not able to have control over her own property . . . aka her electronic case files and her electronic evidence, hmm? Inquiring minds want to know, don’t they? And, of course, the other individual who helped Sandra get convicted (MacDonald, right?) was all full of excuses and full of virtual roadblocks instead of real solutions to Sandra’s missing property problem, wasn’t she?
It’s trivia question time, isn’t it?
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?
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
It’s history time, isn’t it?
Michael Brodkorb @mbrodkorb Grazzini-Rucki’s new criminal attorney, Stephen Grigsby was very critical of Grazzini-Rucki’s fmr. atty Michelle MacDonald. He said (1/2)… Retweet 1 Like 1 Lori Musolf Steve Timmer 1:37 PM – 24 Nov 2015
Michael Brodkorb @mbrodkorb demanding “a speedy omnibus before you’ve looked at the discovery to me is not something a competent lawyer would do.” MacDonald did this. Retweet 1 Likes 2 Jack Ray Lori Musolf Steve Timmer 1:39 PM – 24 Nov 2015
Something to ponder, okay? How it is possible that Sandra’s so-called defense team fell into lawless Dakota County’s obstruction of justice trap when a previous high-profile case in lawless Carver County foreshadowed the exact same obstruction of justice trap, huh? Inquiring minds really, really want to know, don’t they? They do, don’t they?
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12 – 0855 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Caroline Marie Rice, Appellant. Filed August 19, 2013 Reversed and remanded Hudson , Judge Dissenting , Schellhas, Judge Carver County District Court File No. 10-CR-10-1003
Reasons why case was reversed and remanded:
1. Evidentiary errors
2. Jury instruction
3. Judicial conduct
4. Prejudicial error
Case No. 10-CR-10-1003 State of Minnesota vs Caroline Marie Rice
Events & Orders of the Court – DISPOSITIONS
Disposition (Judicial Officer: Perkins, Richard C.)
1. Deprive Custody/Parent Rights-Cause Child Being Runaway (Not applicable – GOC) Convicted
2. Deprive Another-Cust/Parental Rights-Conceal Minor Convicted
3. Deprive-Custody/Parent Rights-Violation Court Order-Take Minor Convicted
Amended Disposition (Judicial Officer: Perkins, Richard C.) Reason: Appeals Court Reversal
1. Deprive Custody/Parent Rights-Cause Child Being Runaway (Not applicable – GOC) Vacated
2. Deprive Another-Cust/Parental Rights-Conceal Minor Vacated
3. Deprive-Custody/Parent Rights-Violation Court Order-Take Minor Vacated
Amended Disposition (Judicial Officer: Perkins, Richard C.) Reason: Prosecution motion granted, Appeals Court Reversal
1. Deprive Custody/Parent Rights-Cause Child Being Runaway (Not applicable – GOC) Dismissed
2. Deprive Another-Cust/Parental Rights-Conceal Minor Dismissed
3. Deprive-Custody/Parent Rights-Violation Court Order-Take Minor Dismissed
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
11/30/2010 E-filed Comp-Warrant (Make sure you take note that electronic case files have been used since this high-profile case, okay?)
More to come . . .