Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Millionaire Seeks Court Filing Fees from Homeless, Destitute Ex-Wife

The latest on the #grazzinirucki case from Michael Volpe and PPJ Gazette…

 

That David Rucki would file a motion to compel homeless, destitute ex-wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, to pay for his own court costs in legal proceedings that have destroyed her life.. is the same as charging for the nail he is driving into her coffin.

This is no different than what Saddam Hussein would do to his victims.. shoot them dead and then charge the family for the bullet.

Though the court has ruled Sandra Grazzini-Rucki too poor to pay for her own filings, her ex-husband’s attorney thinks she should pay for his.

The latest from journalist Michael Volpe…

 

Lisa Elliott, the long-time attorney for David Rucki, filed a notice for a taxation of costs- meaning she wants the other side to pay for the costs of filing- with the appeals court.

Attorney Lisa Eliott

In her response, Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald explained to the court that her client is a pauper.

Appellant, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, hereby objects to the taxation of costs and disbursements dated September 1, 2017,” MacDonald said in her response, “on the ground that: Appellant was granted informa pauperis status and is a pauper.”

By granting Grazzini-Rucki informa pauperis status the court has deemed Grazzini-Rucki too poor to afford to pay for her own filing fees and they are thereby waived; but that hasn’t stopped Elliott from demanding she pay for her client’s filing fees.

David Rucki

MacDonald, after receiving a $5,000 retainer in early 2013, has been working on Grazzini-Rucki’s custody case pro-bono; she was once forced to conduct part of a custody trial while handcuffed to a wheelchair.

The latest filing follows a similar filing by Elliott in late August asking the court which handled her client’s divorce to order Grazzini-Rucki to pay for all the filing fees- in excess of $3,000- she accrued in that court.

The series of events defy logic.

Late last month, the same appeals court upheld a previous ruling by Judge Maria Pastoor which ordered Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband nearly $1,000 in child support.

That appeal’s decision was authored by Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks.

David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who received 100% of the marital estate- which included a business, four homes, and nine classic cars- by an order of Judge David Knutson despite the standard in all divorce that distributions of marital estates be “equitable”.

While the court on one hand has recognized Grazzini-Rucki’s pauper status, the same court has ordered her to pay child support to a multi-millionaire even though she is homeless, penniless and jobless, rendered that way by the same court which is now ordering her to pay child support.

Lisa Elliott has refused to respond to repeated emails for comment.

Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota Courts, also did not respond to an email for comment.

___________________

Beau Berentson, Director of Communications and Public Affairs at the Minnesota Judicial Branch, receives his salary from the tax payers of Minnesota… and it is his job to answer your questions or comments, including those about the Grazzini-Rucki case.

Contact: Beau Berentson
Court Information Office
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
(651) 296-6043 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)

Send e-mail via contact form at: Minnesota Court Information Office

Or: beau.berentson@courts.state.mn.us

Advertisements

Shocking Details Emerge – Fraudulent HRO Filed Against Blogger Dede Evavold

Source: Realty Websites Shine Reality on Rucki’s Fraudulent HRO vs Dede Evavold

Public Domain: redherringalert.wordpress.com

Update on Dede Evavold HRO… one of the complaints against Evavold in the fraudulent HRO filed by Davd Rucki is that she posted pictures of Rucki’s home on social media.

Dede Evavold on HRO: When We Lose Free Speech

Turns out that, in fact pictures of both the Ireland Place property and the property in Farmington, owned by David Rucki, were previously posted online in a realty listing. The photos of both homes have existed online for many years, and were made publicly available even before Evavold’s criminal trial began. These pictures are now in the public domain. 

What’s next an HRO filed against the realtor, against Google??

See for yourself:

Fraud on Farmington Property

Movato – Farmington Home

At some point Rucki listed this home in Farmington for sale, and his realtor created a site including interior and exterior photos of the home. Rucki then de-listed the house… if he was so poor and in need of public assistance, why not just sell the home and use the proceeds to support his family?

Rucki continues to keep ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki listed on the mortgage to the Farmington home — even to this day. Why? Rucki admitted in court that he masterminded a “paper divorce” and with the help of Judge Knutson, worked to destroy Sandra by depleting all of her financial assets. What came next was a series of court motions that made it impossible for Sandra to financially support herself, more court orders were issued to ban Sandra from all contact with family so she would not be able to receive any help or assistance. The sum of the 4,000+ court orders issued by Judge Knutson is the attempted murder of a loving stay at home mother, who became a liability to her abusive husband when she sought a divorce, and exposed his abuse of her and the children to the family court.

Judge Knutson drafted a court order that gave David Rucki 100% of the marital property, including the Farmington home. Sandra has zero rights or ownership to the property. At the same time, Judge Knutson allowed Rucki to leave Sandra on the mortgage of the Farmington home so that she could be held financially liable for the property. The Farmington property supposedly is also being used as a rental property, meaning Rucki generates income on it. A homeless woman is now being held financially responsible for the mortgage of her millionaire husband’s second home… by order of Judge Knutson.

Sandra is destitute and homeless. She has slept in the darkest corners…places most could not imagine, with only the rats scampering across the dirty streets to witness her desperation.  Huddled in castaway clothing to keep her warm, Sandra clutches legal papers to her chest, hoping that one day the truth will be revealed and she will exonerated and set free from this hellish life.

In comparison, abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, has been given exclusive ownership of not one but 4 separate homes, that they owned jointly during the marriage by order of Judge Knutson. In addition, Rucki has been given 100% of property inside all four homes – including every item of Sandra’s personal belongings down to from her family mementos down to her socks. Sandra’s name is listed on a mortgage of a home that she cannot step foot in even though she is so desperately in need of shelter. The Farmington home is beautifully remodeled with 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, cherry cabinets in the kitchen and adjacent to a city park. It is the perfect home for a family, but the happy laughter of children will remain forever silent in these empty rooms.

If that is not outrageous enough, while Sandra is living on the street, homeless, Rucki uses the pole barn in the back of the home as a luxury suite for his collection of classic cars. The cars even have a home, and are protected from the elements, while ex-wife Sandra is living on the streets. Rucki owns a total of 9 fully restored classic cars, with a specially designed lift to stack the cars so they will fit in the luxury suit. The rest of the luxury suite is Rucki’s own version of the playboy mansion and includes a fully stocked bar with the most expensive taste in liquor, includes a bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. The taxpayers are footing the bill for Rucki’s life of luxury since he is living off public assistance PLUS he writes off the entire Farmington property as a business expense on his taxes.

Public Domain: wall.alphacoders.com

While Sandra is living on the streets, Rucki is even able to provide his collection of cigars with a home. Rucki pays for 3 separate, exclusive memberships to house his collection of expensive cigars in a humidor, with personal use of a temperature controlled wall vault. Each vault is beautifully decorated with Rucki’s name engraved in gold (every welfare recipient should have their own humidor inside a cigar lounge!).

Clearly, Rucki doesn’t need to be on welfare, he is just scamming the system. Each cigar Rucki smokes, he burns up cash while he demands nearly $1,000 a month in child support from ex-wife Sandra. Sandra  is not only  homeless but the State of Minnesota has denied food support and general assistance to her, leaving her utterly destitute. Sandra should not even have to ask for welfare, nor should be homeless, had Rucki complied with the divorce on it’s original, mutually agreed upon terms, she would be living very well today, and financially stable, raising the five children she loves.

Judge David Knutson

If that is not bad enough, Sandra has also been court ordered by Judge Knutson to pay the millionaire’s credit card debt — and she has ZERO income. David Rucki is also using the Farmington address, and using Sandra’s name to charge up thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards, one example is this publicly listed notice from September 25, 2014: Capital Finance LLC v Rucki

According to the complaint, on May 1, 2004, Rucki opened a charge account with U.S. Bank, with $31,417 owed at the time of this notice posted in the newspaper. According to the complaint Rucki was “unjustly enriched” and refusing to pay back the amount owed.

David Rucki 3rd Party Complaint Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

So what is Rucki’s defense for going on a shopping spree and ringing up $31k in debt? Blame the debt on destitute, homeless ex-wife Sandra! In fact, Rucki actually cites a court order from Judge Knutson stating he has the right to shift ALL of his personal debt, that he acquired after the divorce, onto ex-wife Sandra. The summons here, filed by attorney Lisa Elliott (who charges $310 to “poor” Rucki living on public assistance) does not include the name or contact information for Sandra’s attorney in the notice. Which means Elliott is manipulating the legal process so that Sandra will not be able to respond, and Rucki will receive a favorable settlement by default.

While David Rucki lives like a king in any one of the 4 fully furnished, beautifully decorated house of his choosing, he is purposefully driving ex-wife Sandra further into debt each day, and attempting to murder her by making it impossible for her to survive… Sandra is living on the street, somewhere.

Public Domain: wallpapercave.com

Judge Knutson should also be held responsible because he willingly took part in Rucki’s scam, that destroyed a family and is costing the taxpayers in the State of Minnesota millions the longer the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Rucki’s “paper divorce” continues. David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

It’s Not Right On Ireland Place

David Rucki is claiming that Dede Evavold is harassing him by posting pictures of his home on Ireland Place, that property is was also previously listed for sale on a realty site and posted online… and has remained online, in public view, for many years. Evavold is not responsible for actions that happened before her criminal trial, Rucki consented to put pictures of his home into the public domain, where they sit today.

The Ireland Place property owned by Rucki has been subject of a mortgage fraud complaint, that Dakota County and the State of Minnesota refuses to investigate.

Rucki put the Ireland Place home in foreclosure 7 times in one year and then bought the home at a rock bottom prices, far below market value.

Read the complaint at this link: mortgagefrauda

Another Day in Lawless Lakeville: Fraud & Financial Abuse Allegations Surround David Rucki

Just like the property in Farmington, the Ireland Place property was fully remodeled, listed for sale and then delisted and put back into Rucki’s ownership as part his “paper divorce” scam.

The (former) realty listing describes the luxurious home on Ireland Place: “Pack the bags and bring the family this fantastic 1 owner, 2 story awaits you. Cul-de-sac, walk to schools, Lake  and more. Lots of updates, stainless, carpets, paint, gorgeous hickory floors. Quality throughout. McDonald Built!

Read More: Ireland Place on Zillow

The photos on Zillow are from a prior real estate listing for Ireland Place, MLS #4464616.

Note the family photo on the wall of the Rucki children, by court order of Judge Knutson that was also confiscated and turned over to Rucki. Sandra was not allowed to take even one picture of her children with her when she was removed from her home by order of Judge Knutson in Septmeber 2012. Then Rucki systemically removed every picture of Sandra from the house, every reminder, and through de-programming and reunification therapy has worked to remove Sandra’s memory from the minds of the children who have begged for their mother since the day she was forcefully, and unjustly removed from their lives. All of this done with the consent, and approval, of Judge Knutson who has been enriched by Rucki’s “paper divorce” scam.

Will Rucki File an HRO Against Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20 Next?

Let’s not forget that David Rucki appeared on a nationally televised show, 20/20 with Elizabeth Vargas on two separate occasions where he allowed his house to be filmed inside and out, and allowed filming of the minor children during a private family Christmas. The episode also featured family photos, including those of the minor children, and video footage that Rucki provided to 20/20. 20/20 also included the full legal names of the minor children.

Pictures of Rucki’s home and children were blasted across the country, and went viral, with his consent and now he is claiming his privacy is invaded and he feels harassed??

Rucki also requested the filming of the Grazzini-Rucki criminal case. Again, no concerns for privacy then, and the names of minor children were also made public.

And we are to believe Dede Evavold is to blame? Or to throw out the 1st Amendment to make blogging an illegal activity?

The HRO Rucki filed against Evavold is clearly fraudulent and constitutes legal abuse, if not a malicious lawsuit.

Judge David Knutson Retaliates Against Red Herring Alert

Source: Judge David Knutson Retaliates Against Red Herring Alert

Public Domain: https://www.pexels.com

And for anyone who would dare press the complaints and issues beyond the initial “status quo guardians”, demonization, discrediting and economic retaliation are used to neutralize these voices of discontent and dissent…” ~ Don Mashak~ Political Google Site

Breaking News… Corrupt in Dakota County, Judge David L. Knutson retaliates against blogger and co-defendant in the Grazzini-Rucki case, Dede Evavold.

Judge Knutson issued a probation violation summons the very same day Evavold published an article Secrecy Is The Freedom Tyrants Dream Of criticizing the lack of transparency, and accountability in the judicial system.

The article mentioned Judge Knutson as an example, and included copies of a complaint previously raised against him. The article also suggested that Judge Knutson be removed from the bench or impeached.

Judge David Knutson — who has played role both in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial and the divorce of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki — issued a probation violation summons against Evavold for publishing articles on a blog called “Red Herring Alert”. The violation stems from a court order prohibiting Evavold to mention the name of the Grazzini-Rucki family in social media for the length of her probation, an estimated 8 years!

Red Herring Alert is a blog that includes contributions from many authors, and there is no evidence that Evavold actually created or published the content in question.

Dede Evavold is not a criminal – she is a wife and a mother, who as a hobby, enjoys writing about current events and political news.

Evavold’s life was turned upside down after being convicted of 6 felonies, and sentenced by Judge Karen Asphaug (November 10, 2016) for felony parental deprivation for her role in assisting two teens S.R. and G.R. who were desperate to escape an abusive father (and paternal aunt) and feared for their lives after the courts and police failed to protect them. S.R. and G.R. openly stated they would run away with or without help and remained in hiding for over 2 years. When given opportunities to return to the care of their father, David Rucki, both girls refused, due to safety concerns. Witnesses say the behavior and emotional state of both S.R. and G.R. is consistent with abuse: Multiple Witness Reports: Rucki Sisters Fearful of Father, Felt Safe at Ranch

Judge Knutson ignored their cries for help of all five Rucki children and court ordered them into reunification therapy, and then the sole custody of, the identified abuser, father, David Rucki. At the time of the custody order, Rucki was on probation for a violation of a protective order, stemming from an incident involving ex-wife, Sandra. Sandra says she is being stalked, harassed and threatened by Rucki.

Judge Knutson made his ruling despite overwhelming evidence of Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and evidence supporting abuse of the children had occurred. For example, during a “telephonic conference” held on  September 7, 2012, Judge Knutson admitted that he was aware of allegations of sexual abuse involving the girls. Instead of protecting the children, Judge Knutson ordered their mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, from the home and worked to reunite the children with their abusive father. Just a few months later, the Rucki children personally met with Judge Knutson in chambers, and disclosed allegations of abuse. Immediately after disclosure, Judge Knutson ordered the Rucki children into visiting Rucki and placed a bailiff at the door to prevent their escape.  Judge Knutson then ordered that the conference with the children be sealed, in an apparent cover up.

Judge Knutson is involved in every aspect of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and acts outside the law in such an extreme way that it could be said that he is David Rucki’s hired thug. Judge Knutson was involved in criminal cases against David Rucki, giving preferential treatment. Judge Knutson was involved in both the the divorce and criminal trial. Judge Knutson assigned himself to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s criminal case and gave her a million dollar bail in Novmber, 2015. Judge Knutson is also connected to all of the judges appointed to every level of this case – including a connection to Judge Karen Asphaug, who is now presiding over the criminal trials of both Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Dede Evavold.

Dede Evavold has a constitutionally protected right to express her views, and should not be punished for the exercise of her 1st Amendment right to free speech. That Judge Knutson would take these actions against her, and be allowed to do so, shows just how corrupt the courts, and judicial system, in Dakota County really are. 

Beyond that, the public and people of Minnesota should also be expressing concern about the lawless and dangerous actions of Judge Knutson; who has court ordered five children into the care and custody of a dangerous abuser and destroyed the mother who sought to protect them.

That Dede Evavold is speaking out, despite enormous pressure against her to remain silent, and threats of jail, is courageous. To remain silent on this issue would mean complicity in the abuse of the Rucki children, and enable the destruction of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, a loving, mother, who is being persecuted for her efforts to keep her children safe from harm after the family court system failed to protect them.

Hear more from Dede in her interview on Village Connection Radio: DEDE EVAVOLD, PAYING FOR BEING AN ACTIVIST FOR CHANGE

 

Read More About Judge David Knutson:

Commentary: Bailiffs Acting Like Judge Knutson’s Personal Thugs

Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases?

2013 Complaint Against Judge David L. Knutson Alleges Misconduct, Malice

Never Forget: Judge Knutson – Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist

Homeless, Destitute Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Ordered to Pay Nearly $1k Month to Millionaire Ex Husband

Homeless, Destitute Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Ordered to Pay Nearly $1k Month to Millionaire Ex Husband

The latest coverage on the #grazzinirucki case from journalist Michael Volpe….

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki maybe homeless, jobless, and penniless but that doesn’t mean should not be paying child support to her multi-millionaire ex-husband.

The court acknowledged that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is currently earns no money but used the concept of imputed income to justify its ruling.

Imputed income allows judges to base child support based on an income level the judge deems is reasonable even if the party is not currently earning that living.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That was the peculiar ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals authored by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks.

Judge Halbrooks upheld a decision by Judge Maria Pastoor of the Minnesota’s First Judicial District who ordered Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband, David Rucki, $975 per month in child support.

Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks

 

David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who received 100% of the marital estate along with sole custody of their five children in an even more bizarre ruling by Judge David Knutson.

Pastoor’s original ruling was even more bizarre because she made the ruling while Grazzini-Rucki was incarcerated for helping to hide her two oldest daughters after David Knutson forced them into the custody of her ex-husband’s sister, who the two girls insisted was abusive to them.

Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM erred by imputing potential income to her because the CSM (1) disregarded her actual income, (2) failed to make a proper statutory analysis, and (3) improperly adopted a level of income determined by the district court in a prior order. A CSM must calculate a parent’s income based on her potential income.” Judge Halbrooks stated in the order, justifying how a homeless woman can be forced to pay child support.

Judge Halbrooks continued: “Grazzini-Rucki asserts that she had no ability to pay child support because her employment with the airline was ‘in flux’ and that the CSM made ‘vague, generalized and conclusory findings’ that did not justify imputing income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1.5 But these assertions misconstrue the record, particularly the evidence admitted during the September 2016 hearing. The CSM found that after Grazzini-Rucki was released from jail, she submitted a document in March 2016 that stated that she currently worked as a flight attendant Grazzini-Rucki testified, and the CSM acknowledged, that her status of employment was unknown at the time of the September 2016 hearing. But Grazzini-Rucki did not provide any evidence that her employment status had changed or that her employment had been terminated after March 2016.

While Grazzini-Rucki is technically still employed by American Airlines she is not allowed to earn any money unless and until her felony convictions are expunged.

The court acknowledged that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is currently earns no money but used the concept of imputed income to justify its ruling.

Imputed income allows judges to base child support based on an income level the judge deems is reasonable even if the party is not currently earning that living.

In this case, Judge Pastoor and Judge Halbrooks have concluded that, despite having six felonies on her record, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki should be able to find work which pays her in excess of $40,000 per year.

Sandra Grazzini and her ex-husband David Rucki owned a trucking company during their marriage which generated millions in income, but Judge David Knutson, who presided over much of their divorce, ordered David Rucki to get 100% of their marital estate while ordering Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay child support after he also ordered sole-custody to go to David Rucki.

Judge Knutson ordered David Rucki to receive sole custody despite overwhelming evidence he is violent:  a bar fighta road rage incidentincidents of stalkingmultiple violations of restraining orders and choking his wife.

A child protective services report stated that his son, Nico, claimed that David Rucki stuck a gun to his head when he was eight years old.

To add insult to injury, Lisa Elliott, David Rucki’s attorney, filed a motion on August 15, 2017, asking for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay for all the filing fees- $3563 in total- which Elliott accrued since entering the case in 2011.

Elliott did not respond to an email for comment.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki reached what appeared to be an amicable divorce in May 2011, with David Rucki representing himself.

The judge who initially signed the divorce decree, Judge Tim Wermeger, even stated: “The parties were able to settle all issues arising out of the dissolution of the marriage including: child custody and support, spousal maintenance, disposition of real and personal property, and the payment of debts and attorney fees.”

Lisa Elliott joined the case a month after this divorce decree- which is supposed to end a divorce- was signed and the divorce has gone on in perpetuity since her arrival.

Judge David Knutson placed himself on the divorce shortly after Elliott’s arrival; Elliott and David Rucki claimed he was somehow defrauded in the initial eleven page divorce decree.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals would not make Judge Halbrooks available for an interview, saying she cannot discuss her cases.

Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota Court System, did not respond to an email for comment.

Minnesota Exposed: “Tough on Crime” but Silent on Abuse (Grazzini-Rucki Case Update)

I’m the toughest on crime that ever lived, I make Elliott Ness look like nothing.  I think for some reason the authoritiehave dropped the ball on this case.” – per Ron Rosenbaum (Holding Court Podcast Thu, 22 October 2015) claims he is paraphrasing James Backstrom.

County Attorney James C. Backstrom

The Lakeville police have mishandled the investigation of the missing Rucki sisters – worked to cover up child abuse, and tainted the investigation with bias and misinformation. Innocent children are being punished for the actions of an abuser, and those who are charged with protecting them have failed to keep them safe.

 Ongoing Child Abuse Cover Up 

From the beginning, the Lakeville Police have failed to protect those victimized by David Rucki – Sandra and the children, the neighbors, and the public. Had the Lakeville Police properly intervened, the escalating behavior could have been prevented, and the children could have been spared the abuse they have suffered (and continue to suffer.)

 

Miles

Laura Miles GAL Coordinator

The Lakeville police are aware of multiple abuse allegations concerning the Rucki sisters made before their disappearance. NONE of these allegations were ever investigated by the police. The sisters had also attempted to run away in Sept. 2012, again because they did not feel safe.

The Rucki sisters also reported  abuse to numerous professionals, doctors, therapists, friends – and each time the family court professionals, under the jurisdiction of Judge Knutson, ignored or dismissed their cries for help. Even after being “recovered”, the Rucki sisters again stated to anyone who would listen, that they were afraid of their father, David Rucki, that he had abused them, and that they would run away if returned to his care. Instead of listening to their cries for help, the police and court system have chosen to listen to the abuser.

Judge David Knutson

Judge David Knutson

 

Dr. Paul Reitman, Clinical Psychologist

JFX

Julie Friedrich, GAL

 Rogue Drone – Detective Jim Dronnen Erases Report of OFP Violation

Image from sunthisweek.com

Image from sunthisweek.com

Det. Jim Dronen should have never been assigned to this case because of his past involvement with David Rucki.

In 2011, Det. Dronnen handled a case where Rucki was charged with an OFP violation. Dronnen had the charge not only dismissed but wiped completely off MNCIS.

Lakeville Appoints Det. Dronen to “Most Bizarre” Case

Det. Jim Dronnen began working on the case in 2014, and bragged that “the Rucki case was virtually the only one he worked on”. How is this possible? What about the violent crimes, unsolved cases and other threats to public safety? How can the Lakeville police direct one investigator to this case – and yet also fail to issue an Amber Alert or fail to do a local search for the missing sisters?

The Lakeville police also failed to contact Trish Van Pilsum, who interviewed the the girls for a story after they had run away. There was a crucial period of time to gather information that was totally ignored. Yet, at a later date, the Lakeville police had multiple conversations with Brandon Stahl and Michael Brodkorb of the Star Tribune…after the girls were missing for almost 2 years! What is the difference? The Star Tribune had aligned with the Lakeville police in covering up abuse, while Van Pilsum was exposing it.

The Lakeville police had mishandled previous reports of abuse made in connection to David Rucki, and needed to keep the allegations silent to avoid responsibility for their role in the escalating conflicts. In order for this cover-up to be successful, one party must be targeted a scapegoat. 

Just A “Very Sad Case…(of a) Nasty Divorce” or a High Profile Case for Lakeville?

Instead of correctly naming, and investigating the abuse, the Lakeville police have begun a disinfo campaign to say this case is really just a “high conflict” divorce issue.

Lakeville Police Chief Jeff Long says this case “is one of the most ‘bizarre’ cases he has seen throughout his 29-year career..” Keep in mind that Chief Long has investigated murder, rape and other serious crimes.. and yet we are to believe this is “the most bizarre”? 

The Lakeville police ignored the history of abuse, ignored documentation of abuse , and ignored the reason the Rucki sisters ran away. They stated they did not want to live in the care of paternal aunt Tammy Love, which is in itself may be an indicator of abuse. 

If the sisters did not run away due to abuse, what led up to this? According to Detective Dronnen,of the Lakeville Police Dept. “This is a very sad case that just shows how nasty divorce can be…When you have people that are just working so hard to win, it can just make things really, really nasty and there’s really no winners.” 

The police listened with a sympathetic ear to David complain about suing Sandra for the money in her family trust. What does that have to do with the missing Rucki sisters?

4bebc-brodkorb_rucki_love_elliot_donehower_19av-fa-11-1273_012616

 

 

 

Millionaire David Rucki then used money from the Wetterling Foundation to pay for all expenses for the Rucki sisters to be shipped, with a retired security officer so they would not run away again, on a plane to California for “intense therapy lasting 6-8 hours a day” to “de-program” the girls in a treatment facility, transcripts state, which was used by the Feds on numerous occasions.

David confided to an officer that “the MN Attorney General’s Office was conducting an investigation which involved the two missing girls in this case.”  According to David Rucki, the Attorney General’s Office is now involved in a missing persons case? 

The Lakeville police also utilized the resources of the BCA to collect DNA samples on the sisters as well as dental records. 

Why all of this effort? I would argue that Lakeville’s interest in this case was not so much in finding the Rucki sisters, but had to do more with this being a high-profile case that would increase the prestige of the police department. 

 A Pat on the Back for the Good ‘Ole Boys

IN 2015, Det. Dronnen was named officer of the year. And Det. Dronnen recently received a Medal of Commendation related to his work on the Rucki case (May 2016) . Mayor Matt Little personally praised him, saying, “If you continue to receive all that pressure, we’ve got your back and we’ll support you for the whole way.” Det. Dronnen is given one of the highest awards for law enforcement service, usually reserved for those who risk their lives in the line of duty, for one case that was supplemented with help from the Star Tribune?

If this is not a Red Herring Alert, I don’t know what one is! Stay tuned for updates on the Grazzini-Rucki case… 

Additional Sources:

Charges Filed Following Discovery of Missing Rucki Sisters

The Provocateur: David Rucki’s Greatest Hits (Michael Volpe)

Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse? (Michael Volpe)

(2011) Judge Knutson Orders Reunification Therapy with David Rucki and Children, while HRO in place

Lakeville detective receives medal of commendation

RĒ TALLY Ā SHEE ŌNN? (Det Dronnen)

Michael Volpe Discusses the Grazzini-Rucki Case on The Long Version

Apr. 20, 2016  Weighing In.

Start at 22:47

 

Well Warriors, I just had the first “Weigh In Wednesday” today sponsored by the Doctor’s Diet Clinic.  I have dropped 3.8 pounds the first week and I am taking all-natural supplements and not the controlled substance, appetite suppressant, though the program permits the latter, which is why there is a physician on staff.    My mother, who is doing the program with me, in the same amount of time has lost 3.5 pounds and she too is thrilled.  Proportionately, she has done even better than I, as 3.5 pounds comprises much more of her total body weight than 3.8 pounds comprises of mine, I assure you.  “Weighing In” has a literal component, as I have above detailed, but is has a hypothetical component too.  

On the Version, Michael Volpe, author of the book Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney Kafkaesque Divorce, a regular contributor, and daily listener weighed-in on how the ABC News show, 20/20, treated Michelle McDonald.  Michelle MacDonald represented Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in a custody matter against her ex-husband David Rucki regarding two children, Samantha and Gianna Rucki who ran away from home during the bitter custody dispute and were gone for some two years.  The subtitle of the piece run on 20/20 was Footprints in the Snow.  On the Version detailing the story from the perspective of Michelle MacDonald, Michelle was taken into custody for violating the Court’s rule against taking a photograph during the proceeding.  She was hand-cuffed to a wheel chair and forced to defend a client whom court personnel had sent home, telling Ms. Rucki and her witnesses Court had adjourned for the day.  Michelle lost the custody case, but, after all, she was confined to a chair and forced to proceed with her client and witnesses dispersed to the four corners of the area.  I guess if winning that way is satisfying to David Rucki, then…Congratulations.

On what Michael and I focused, however, was the curious decision of 20/20 and its host Elizabeth Vargas to require that Sandra Rucki provide police recorded, written proof of David Rucki’s abusing her during their marriage.  What Vargas did was ask a very limited question meant to confine the answer to constraints Vargas knew would net the answer on which she was counting.  All Vargas had to do was consult the public record to find out that Ms. Rucki never complained to the police, in a manner which was memorialized in writing at least, of being abused by David Rucki during the parties’ marriage.  While there was ample documentation setting forth a litany of incidents of abuse, none of them fit into the box 20/20 fashioned in that they weren’t reported to the police during the parties’ marriage and memorialized in writing by the police via “report.”  

I suppose what Elizabeth Vargas is saying is that all wives subjected to abuse at the hands of the husbands report the incident to the police and that the incident is further reduced to writing in official report.  I suppose in all instances the police confer charges.  I suppose further that event of abuse never really occurred if, let’s say, a wife be unwilling to report being abused to authorities for some silly reason like the husband is either the primary wage-earner or, at least, a substantial contributor to the household wages and the children and she would like to continue eating.  Do motorists only speed if issued a citation?  Is the fact the motorist has never been cited establish he has never disobeyed any rules of the road?

What Elizabeth Vargas did was a technique I commonly employed when I practiced law and one I would have undertaken had David Rucki employed me to defend him.  The difference is, in those days, it would have been my function to advocate my client’s position.  It is both sad and misguided that Elizabeth Vargas, as a member of the national media, thought this was her function too.  What Ms. Vargas did in asking such a limited question is scope is frighteningly similar to an old sleazy, lawyer trick. “Mr. Johnson, are you still beating your wife?”  There is no way for the witness to answer the question.  If he is no longer beating his wife he concedes he once did and if he answers yes he is confessing.  Members of our esteemed National News Media, of the ilk of Elizabeth Vargas, enjoy a much finer reputation than almost all lawyers.  Wouldn’t it be just resplendent if they comported thusly?    

Vargas knew exactly what she was doing in confining her question to a narrow set of circumstances which would net a response which best furthered her angle.  She arrived at the interview pre-armed with the opinion Sandra Rucki was alienating the Rucki children against their father and the Judge had properly conducted the hearing in which Michelle MacDonald was forced to participate from restraint and confinement.  She worked the problem in advance of her investigation and didn’t set about to expose the truth but to confirm the answer to which she had long arrived.  Mark Twain once said “[t]here are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.”  I am afraid Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her intrepid lawyer, Michelle MacDonald, were in need of protection from Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20 unwittingly.  I am afraid Joseph Pulitzer was correct when he warned, “A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.”  Take it for what it is worth, because…

THAT’S THE LONG VERSION!

P.S. The Long Version both credits and appreciates Michael Volpe and CDN (Communities Digital News) for contributions to this blog from the story, Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse?

Allow me first to say that if you haven’t heard Today’s Version go, tout suite, and hear the Podcast under the same title as this Blog.  We covered for the second day in a row the 20/20 interview of Attorney Michelle MacDonald.  What ensued was fantastic radio and completely unplanned and unscripted.  That’s what makes it fun and I hope it was as fun to hear as it was in which to participate.  It does cast a light on a topic I daily contemplated in my former profession as a trial lawyer and that is the most persuasive way to argue a point.

Desmond Tutu, a famous Anglican Catholic Archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa, instructed “[d]on’t raise your voice, improve your argument.”  I found this to be true throughout my career.  More simply put by Ben Goldacre in Bad Science  “[y]ou cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”  Yelling creates discourse and resentment but not thoughtful discussion. I have personally always found true intelligence is often marked by one’s ability to change a position if one or the other side makes a compelling and reasoned argument.  My mind has been changed about a great number of things in my lifetime and any conviction of mine is subject to be altered if sufficiently persuaded when appropriate.  

Probably one of the first things one should do in an argument is find where there is common ground and take that as the ground from which to base your thesis.  Today it became obvious to me that, regarding the story 20/20 aired about the Rucki dispute, neither Cliff nor Michael Volpe (I tend to agree with Volpe on this), were going to agree about whether the ABC News story had covered the story accurately and fairly.  In the interest of full disclosure both Michael Volpe and I have personal relationships and even business ties to Michelle MacDonald which results in her having credibility with us.  I personally have found no reason to not put faith in what she has ever before represented to me.  Cliff appears suspicious of Michelle MacDonald and what she professes; so, right there, a critical divide exists which appears to impede agreement.  Blaise Pascal in his work, De l’art de persuader, which amounts to the title of this piece but in French, says “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”  For both personal and business reasons Michael Volpe and I find it attractive to believe what our friend and Publisher tells us.  Cliff finds being skeptical of Michelle’s representations and crediting the ABC News reporter’s integrity and honesty more attractive.  I am not willing to credit the ABC News Reporter because of her profession and for whom she works anymore than Michelle should be likewise credited.  I know Michelle to be honest and have enormous integrity, that’s enough for Michael Volpe and me.

Here’s what I do know.  Ms. Rucki is in custody for violating an Order of the Court.  This Order emanated from a proceeding in which her attorney was arrested for an offense which didn’t warrant arrest and forced to conduct the trial restrained to a wheel chair, hand-cuffed, with the hand-cuffs attached to a belt around her waist tethered to the wheel chair.  The party represented by the constrained attorney was sent home by Court personnel, together with her witnesses, after being told the Court had adjourned for the day, which was untrue.  With Ms. Rucki absent and unable to either defend or be heard in a meaningful way, the Court awarded custody to David Rucki.  If Ms. Rucki then absconded with the children in defeat of that Order, as alleged by the charging instrument; then that Order’s coming to exist in violation of the Federal Constitution is both relevant and should have been part of the 20/20 story.  ABC News omitted this from the story it took to air on its very popular news show.  Between Michael Volpe, Cliff Ritter and me, though we agreed on almost nothing else, we all agreed on the contents of this paragraph.  This becomes, then, the common ground from where an argument can be won.

So here it is!  ABC News reported on Ms. Rucki’s being jailed for interfering with an Order which came into being in violation of her Federally protected Constitution Rights.  They made Sandra Rucki look like a wanton criminal in the offing.  However, Orders entered in complete defeat of a litigant’s Constitutionally protected rights either are or should be considered void ab initio; which means the custody order would have been treated as invalid from the outset or from the beginning.  With respect to 20/20 and ABC News that isn’t just relevant, it’s the crux of the whole dispute.  It not being included in the coverage for the viewer to at least frame the issue as to whether this was an Order which should have been ignored, owing to how it came into being, is slanted, one-sided, and partial reporting unworthy of a multiple Peabody Award winning broadcast.  In my mind, it discredits the story’s complete integrity.  Take it for what it is worth, because

THAT’S THE LONG VERSION!

____________________________________________________________


This is about money laundering through our tax dollars!

FATHERHOOD.GOV

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as a “custody switching tactic.”  Kids can definitely be turned against a parent and demonstrate alienating behaviors but PAS to switch custody is a scheme in which mothers are primarily pathologized and blamed for interfering with their children’s attachment to their fathers. The scheme is funded by fathers’ rights extremist groups who in turn are funded by federal grants.

There are many terrific and honest  father`s rights groups across the U.S. that promote fairness and equality between mothers and fathers working towards the best interest of the children.  Unfortunately, there are also wide spread corrupt fathers’ rights groups that pocket federal grant funds while allowing severe trauma to children.

Fathers Rights – is the term used for the federal funding used in the fraud and corruption. Fathers Manifesto Groups discovered a malicious way to take advantage of the billions handed to State Agencies and abuse and control their ex-girlfriend/spouse.

Hatred of Women a Common Theme – A number of leaders of fathers’ custody advocacy groups are clearly misogynistic and use their Internet sites to exhort men to take action against ex-wives, using hate-filled language. They are described as displaying virulent misogyny, spreading false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.

  • 95% of sexual molestation of girls and 90% of sexual molestation of boys are by
  • 70% of abusive fathers are the winners in custody fights.
  • ”The Parental Alienation Syndrome theory” is used almost exclusively against women.
  • Statements by Dr. Richard Gardner “…pedophilia is an accepted practice by billions of people”  “…our society’s response to it is ‘excessively moralistic and punitive.”  “…there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us.”  “a mother’s hysterics [to child molestation]…will contribute to the child’s feeling that a heinous crime has been committed.”
  • The “true” victims according to PAS: Fathers are “victims of mothers’ viciousness and vindictiveness.” Judges are “manipulated by mothers.”
  • Sub-conclusion: 94-98.5% of sexual abuse allegations made by either children or their mothers are true
  • In this largest national study to examine intentionally false allegations, CIS-98 found Deliberate false allegations mostly by fathers

Fathers Rights and THEIR Corrupt Judicial Cronies

A short history of how judges set up a secret system to rig cases for men The Liz Library

Fathers’ Rights activists have made themselves well known.  While they have been successful as promoting themselves as underdogs fighting for equal parenting in a society and legal system which is rigged for women, a closer look at their history, their leaders, their literature and web sites shows a very different story.  Not only are they directly affiliated with a secretive group of judges who handle much of their case litigation, but they are also affiliated with published incest promoters – Gardner, Underwager and Farrell.

Many of them, especially their leaders,  are very bad-dads who are out to beat the system and destroy the mother of their children because her legal rights and the child’s natural bond with their own mother, threaten his need to have the advantage, and especially to evade financial obligations and abuse charges.  While their public chatter is about being disenfranchised by a system which places little to no value on the father-child relationship, their private activities and discussion show that they have been very successful in changing state custody laws in their to their advantage, and changing custody and support orders in their own cases to their advantage.  Many of these purported underdogs have sole custody and receive child support.  The sociopathy of this movement has had a very profound affect not only at its victims, but also on government policy and programs which is tilting toward an official policy of rejecting family violence and abuse complaints as vengeful acts by “bitter” ex-spouse, and eliminating post-divorce financial obligations for women.

AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts   The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation.  Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father.  Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children.  Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies.

Fathers’ Custody Advocacy Groups’ Main Strategies

The Push for Joint Custody: The fathers’ custody activists claim that both legal and physical joint custody is in the best interest of the child. But it is no coincidence that joint custody drastically reduces the father’s child support payments and other financial obligations (health insurance, day care, etc.).

Efforts to make joint custody presumptive by state statute are ongoing around the country for this very reason. In reality, after joint custody is agreed to or ordered by the court, many mothers often have the child or children most of the time, while the reduced child support payment from the father negatively impacts the mother’s ability to support the child or children.

Additionally, in many families where the parents are married, time spent with and provision of daily care of the children are not evenly shared by the two parents while they are together. There is no reason to impose a presumption of joint legal and physical custody on families when they have not previously chosen this arrangement for themselves.The Use of an Accusation of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) as an Offense or Defense in Court: Fathers are urged by some fathers’ custody activists to say the mother is alienating the child from the father and harming the child’s mental health. The fathers hire mental health professionals or others not well qualified who will testify (frequently for a substantial fee) that the mothers are alienating the children. In many cases, the fathers are abusive to the mothers and/or the children, or are using the children to harass or control the mother – leading the children to not want to visit the father. The accusation is most often used to deflect charges of abuse made by the protective mother.

More on Fathers Rights local groups:   While they try to appear as independent people united at the grass roots to fight individual injustices – they are in reality cogs in a highly organization national scheme to recruit male litigants into the AFCC-CRC organized litigation racket.  The men are used to keep the case litigation as active as possible so each court hearing can be billed to federal HHS-ACF program funds.

We all need to have the basic understanding of the federal funding as it really is the heart of the entire system. It’s important to analyze the situation in the courts and come to some conclusions about cause and effect — not just that the effects are really devastating.

The best interests of the child is one safe, secure home, no shifts like cattle mid-week or bi-weekly or seasonally, unless all wish them to go. The best father, once divorced, paves the way to his family’s door with good behavior, with kindness, and generosity. Not the good behavior, kindness and generosity mandated by a court—for that is meaningless.

List of various resources on family law issues. See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/

____________________________________________________________

20/20 Suppression of Truth

SEMANTIGANS

Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse?

Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse?

by Michael VolpeApr 14, 2016

“20/20” ran a program entitled “Footprints in the Snow” about the disappearance in April 2013 of Samantha and Gianna Rucki; Did they tell the whole story.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Gfp-minnesota-glacial-lakes-state-park-footprints-in-the-snow.jpg

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2016 – A recent ABC “20/20” report on a bitter custody battle that led to the disappearance of two Lakeville, Minnesota girls for more than two years may have ignored critical facts.

On April 8, 2016, “20/20” ran a program entitled “Footprints in the Snow” about the disappearance in April 2013 of Samantha and Gianna Rucki, who ran away from home during a bitter custody dispute, leaving nothing but footprints in the snow.

The show hinged on claims by the parents. The mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, said she was abused by her ex-husband, David Rucki. David Rucki, on the other hand, said she made up the allegations and brainwashed their children into believing her, which he called parental alienation.

In the critical scene of the program, Elizabeth Vargas, the show’s host, asked Sandra to provide proof of abuse during their marriage saying: “I’m asking for any of the documentation you assured us existed and we can find none of it.”

Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, went back to her office, where producers rummaged through several thousand papers and then proclaimed, “In more than 20 boxes we didn’t find a single piece of paper or photo to provide that any physical abuse existed.”

But this appears to twist what MacDonald provided them.

According to a 42-page document provided by MacDonald to “20/20,” there was a litany of evidence of abuse including an affidavit, criminal charges and convictions, and numerous incident reports made by Sandra.

Continue Reading: http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/did-2020-manipulate-the-rucki-story-to-hide-abuse-61696/

%d bloggers like this: