Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

(Repost)Unconstitutional Courts Destroying Families for $$ – Hidden Truth Radio and John Hentges

Source: Unconstitutional Courts Destroying Families for $$ – Hidden Truth Radio and John Hentges

Unconstitutional Courts Destroying Families for $$ – Hidden Truth Radio and John Hentges

“The whole thing is about control.. if they (the court system) encounters a non-custodial parent like myself in pursuit of justice, they will do anything to keep truth off the records…”    ~ John Hentges

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

(Originally aired 7/13/2017): Katherine Hine, host of “Hidden Truth Revealed” and guest John Hentges discuss the lawless family court system where corruption, fraud and abuses of judicial power are commonplace.

CLICK on this link to listen: UN-CONSTITUTIONAL “COURTS” DESTROYING FAMILIES FOR $$$

Hentges, a victim of family court in both Colorado and Minnesota, shares his story of how the “judges threw the law book out the door” during his divorce, and describes the devastating impact the injustice in the family court has inflicted on his life. Hentges says his divorce case was “fixed” and resulted in him becoming estranged from his 5 children, becoming impoverished (child support was imputed at more than 4x times higher than his actual earnings) and stripped of everything he owns – his home, business, personal vehicles, and even his premarital belongings and inheritance. Hentges was also arrested on false charges, and jailed, on 3 separate occasions.

Hentges also discusses what he believes is “criminal racketeering” occurring in the court system, where cases are fixed, and parents ensnared in the system, and even jailed, for financial incentives.

Hentges has continued to fight for justice, and since has founded Pro Se Alliance (a charity to help educate those are representing themselves pro se, or without representation, in legal matters) and The People’s Branch. He also discusses his ideas for court and judicial reform in this episode.

The last 15 minutes of the show (1:45 in timing) is a brief discussion of the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case. Both Hentges and Grazzini-Rucki have family court cases in the 1st Judicial District in Minnesota.

The discussion includes:

  • How the court system “aided and abetted” to place the five Rucki children in the custody of an identified abuser; creating a situation so dangerous that the two oldest daughters ran away in order to protect themselves.
  • The retaliation attorney Michelle MacDonald faced for representing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki orchestrated “by the organized control crime that the controls the judiciary and the bar in Minnesota”.
  • That the State of Minnesota, and its leaders, have been provided with information, evidence and complaints concerning the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Hentges’ case, and others, and have failed to investigate or take action concerning systemic problems, and corruption, existing within the judiciary, and the family court system.

Hentges says about Judge David L. Knutson, the former family court judge on the Grazzini-Rucki case, “I hope he is listening or somebody is listening, I will do everything that I can to have that man put in prison for the rest of his life.

Hentges is advocating for, and taking action, to request a formal investigation of 32 victims of family court, including that of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and his own, and additionally asking for whistle blower like protection with the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

Gimme A Break!

Former Anoka County District Judge Alan Pendleton suspended from practicing law for 90 days

Alan Pendleton lied to voters about his residence. 

itemprop

Alan Pendleton

A former Anoka County district judge who was removed from the bench because he was living outside his district has now been suspended from practicing law.

In a petition for disciplinary action filed against Alan Pendleton in December, the director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to suspend Pendleton’s law license for 90 days. The court agreed in an order filed last week.

Pendleton was removed from office in October after he lied to voters about his residence on his affidavit of candidacy. He was living in his wife’s house in Minnetonka, which is in Hennepin County, for eight months starting in December 2013.

In its 39-page decision for removal, the court agreed to the harshest penalty. The majority’s decision said, “In order for the public to have confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, the public must believe that there is an effective system in place to ensure judges abide by our Constitution and follow their ethical obligations.”

Continue Reading:http://www.startribune.com/alan-pendleton-former-anoka-county-district-judge-suspended-from-practicing-law-for-90-days/371567201/


I find it interesting that the court agreed to the harshest penalty for a fairly benign offense. In the Bench & Bar of MN article Summary of private discipline, Timothy Burke states, “Most complaints involving what appear to be allegations of isolated and nonserious misconduct are investigated by a district ethics committee (DEC). The DEC, after investigation, will recommend whether the Director’s Office should find a violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) has been committed and, if so, the appropriate form of discipline.”

Many matters in which a lawyer violated the MRPC are resolved through private discipline. In calendar year 2015, 124 admonitions were issued to Minnesota attorneys. Admonitions are a private form of discipline, issued for isolated and nonserious misconduct.

Ok, so the harshest penalty was recommended by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and agreed to by the MN Supreme Court for living outside the district, but the complaints below were dismissed? GO FIGURE! I would like to know the real story behind this disciplinary action as most of the time when a judge or attorney is targeted, they are seen as a threat to the status quo of the corrupt system.

Complaint Against Dakota County Judge David Knutson (Click to view)

Complaint Against Members of “the firm” Pennington, Lies & Cherne, P.A. St. Cloud, MN (See Below-Click to Enlarge)

LPRB 1LPRB 2LPRB 3 LPRB 4LPRB.5LPRB 6LPRB 7LPRB 8LPRB 9LPRB 10LPRB 11

The Client Security Board is one part of the comprehensive system of lawyer regulation and public protection. The unique role of the Client Security Board is to help the victims overcome their financial losses caused by dishonest lawyers. The fund may reimburse up to $150,000 for dishonest conduct committed by a Minnesota lawyer. It covers the loss of money or property resulting from lawyer dishonesty, but not because the lawyer acted incompetently, committed malpractice or failed to take certain actions. Financially, the fund remains healthy and able to pay claims promptly should a major defalcation be uncovered. In short, the public remains protected and well-served by the Minnesota Client Security Board. NOT!!!


What do we know for sure?

Excerpt from: Legal Evil? In Their Own Words-Don Mashak

We know that “The Minnesota Legislature just set up “figure head” enforcement agencies to give the “illusion of oversight, law and order” (Simulated Justice) to the general public. The Minnesota Legislature rendered the agencies powerless to do anything about Citizen Complaints and Minnesota Governmental unit transgressions. Our Tyrannical Government counted on most citizens not having the financial resources nor knowledge to follow through on forcing their complaints and/or issues from being addressed and resolved. 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.

SIMULATED LAW AND ORDER – DISTORTING YOUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY
Where are the Government agencies that are supposed to be the checks and balances on our Government?
Where is the Justice Department? Where is the FBI? Where are the County Sheriffs? Where are the County Attorneys? Where are the State Attorney Generals? Where are the people and agencies that are supposed to police the police, the lawyers and the judges? Why didn’t the Minnesota State Auditors Department do more?

All of this money is being spent for these people’s salaries for what? Aren’t these aforementioned Government Agencies supposed to protect WE THE PEOPLE from crime, corruption and the trespasses of our Government?”

AJ Kern For Congress

AJ Kern Congress

Caucus

 

 

 

 

Dear Friends,

Most of you have heard by now that I am seeking the Republican endorsement for the Sixth Congressional District of the United States House of Representatives. Many of you were at our event at the Pickled Loon when I announced my candidacy, and to all of you a huge thank you for your support and encouragement to take on this important challenge. Tuesday March 1st is just over a week away so I wanted to take this opportunity to reconnect, and encourage all of you, your friends and family to get out on Tuesday March 1st to your precinct caucus.

As a Christian Constitutional Conservative, I am seeking your endorsement to represent you in the United States House of Representatives, standing with conservatives supporting the constitutional principles our founders designed, including  limited government, defending national sovereignty, culture and borders. I am running a grassroots campaign and I need your individual support to counter the influence of big money and lobbyists currently controlling Washington DC. Although I primarily ask for your vote at the upcoming caucus on March 1, I also ask for modest monetary support. Many small contributions signal many “grassroots” which are needed to counter well funded special interest groups.

First I would like to tell you a little about myself.

My story is probably different than what many of you have experienced.  My parents were both teenagers when I was born with few skills and resources.  Struggling to make ends meet, my parents divorced.  There were many places I called home as a child, including living in a tent one summer picking fruit with the seasonal immigrant workers.  I also experienced living in a middle-eastern country and understand what the culture looks like first hand.

Clearly, the odds were not in my favor…  Nevertheless, I did have one critical circumstance on my side.  I was born an American.

Under the constitutional framework of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I had the same opportunity as any other American to achieve and, just as importantly, the incentive to achieve with the promise to retain what I have worked so hard for.

Relying on the Power much greater than myself, I joined the Army Reserves, attended college, and have enjoyed a blessed and successful life.  After graduate school I worked as a County Planner and then for American Tower Corporation.  Like many women, I was pulled between career and family…  and chose to stay home, raising my own children. Over the past year I have served as a monthly columnist for the St Cloud Times.

Which brings me to this point in my life of seeking the Republican Party endorsement for the Sixth Congressional District of Minnesota. We cannot bury our children in over $19 Trillion in debt. Please support me by being a delegate on March 1st.

To learn more about the issues and why I’m challenging Tom Emmer for the CD6 endorsement please visit www.AJKern.com, subscribe to the newsletter, and donate.

To stay in touch with AJ: Sign up for our list!

 

Systemic Corruption

ID-100178787

Image courtesy of Stuart MilesFreeDigitalPhotos.net

Proposed Caucus Resolutions for Judicial Reform

February 11, 2012 By: Don Mashak


The following are a list of resolutions presented at various Minnesota Caucuses recently. We encourage you to reprint these and take them to your upcoming caucus and/or conventions.
If you are in a different state, please review each to make sure they are applicable to your state. The progress of judicial corruption in your state may not have reached the systemic corruption in Minnesota, and therefore certain of these judicial reform platform resolutions may not be applicable to your state.

JUDICIARY RELATED PLATFORM RESOLUTIONS

Whereas,

1) Judicial decisions should be based on the Rule of Law based on the facts in evidence

Instead, justice in Minnesota is more a matter of “How much justice can you afford?” who you know, who you can influence, exchange of political favors, punishment of lawful political dissent, reward for political loyalty and the whim of Judges. Citizens should be able to come to before the Courts and have a full, fair, impartial and just adjudication of their cases.

Whereas,

2) Judicial Bribes

In Minnesota, Judges are legally allowed to accept “bribes”. As long as the bribe is not more than $150.00 from any one person in a day, they don’t have to report it. And they can accept up to $150.00 per person per day from as many people willing to do so. The allegation is that large law firms often quite skilled at making this work to their advantage.

Of course the rules that permit these “bribes” refer to them as “gifts” and “gratuities”. The author argues that what the mafia calls a “hit” is still an assassination or as the Bard would say, “A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”.

The author asserts that the rank and file of WE THE PEOPLE, regardless of political leanings, agree that judges taking bribes is wrong. Yet for six or more years, both Democrats and Republicans in the State of Minnesota have let this matter go unaddressed. How does that represent the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE?

Whereas,

3) Code of Ethics

The Bar and judges in Minnesota found the title “Code of Ethics” for lawyers too restrictive. Therefore they call it the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. However, in a recent ruling (Fabian v Volkommer) the Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court have ruled that the MN Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied covenant of a contract between a Citizen and a Minnesota Lawyer.

The author presumes that Citizens, especially those not learned in the law, rely upon the lawyer they pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to treat them ethically. Why would you hire any Minnesota attorney who objected to being bound by the Professional Code of Conduct? What is the purpose of the Code of Professional Conduct if lawyers don’t have to follow it? If the legal system in Minnesota were a private company, wouldn’t that be false advertising and fraud? If lawyers have no intention of being bound to the Code of Professional Conduct, does that not demonstrate malice of forethought to defraud WE THE PEOPLE?

How fair is it that the innocent accused of a crime when their Minnesota Public Defender is not bound to the Lawyers’ Code of Professional Conduct? How many innocent persons are in jail because their own attorney betrayed them through the Simulated Litigation process?

There is no acceptable reason for Republicans and Democrats not holding Minnesota Lawyers accountable to the Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. The author asserts and alleges that this ruling was made to aid and abet the practice of “Simulated Litigation”. In Simulated Litigation, the court “telegraphs” to both litigants attorneys the outcome they desire. The attorneys, including your own that you paid, then only put on the record the evidence that allows the judge to reach the verdict the Judge desires. We have all been told that your attorney has a duty to “represent their client to the best of their ability”. But obviously, if your own attorney participates in Simulated Litigation in which the Judge has indicated they want to rule adversely for you, your attorney has not represented you to the best of their ability.

As it stands, anyone who hires a Minnesota Attorney with this ruling not being overturned is a fool. Your attorney has no obligation to treat you ethically. If Minnesota Attorneys were concerned about treating their clients ethically, there would have been loud, boisterous objection to this ruling. Since there was not, it is obvious that Minnesota Attorneys all want to be able to treat their clients unethically.

Whereas,

4) Discreet voice recording devices should be allowed in the Court room

Minnesota judges have a rule that there can be no electronic recording devices in their courtrooms nor at the Court teller windows without permission. If you ask permission, it will likely be denied. What can be the purpose of this rule? It is antithetical to the sentiments of the Founding Fathers who believed openness, transparency and accountability were necessary to keep people in positions of power honest.

The author asserts that the Judges specifically made this rule to allow them to fix cases by altering transcripts. There have been instances where allegations of Court Reporter transcripts were deliberately or accidently altered leading to the facts on the record not being accurate. And the very judges accused of such actions are the most oppressive in imposing the rule.

In this day and age, there is no reason why all court room proceedings cannot be video and audio recorded to assure accuracy and guard against injustice.

I submit that the overwhelming majority of WE THE PEOPLE agree with this position.

Whereas,

5) Constitutional Right to Vote for Judges

The Judges of Minnesota want to take away our right to vote. They contend that the Minnesota judicial System is not corrupt and that recent US Supreme Court Rulings allowing Judicial Candidates the right to affiliate with political parties and to accept campaign contributions will corrupt a nearly pristine Judicial System.

Yet for six years, the Minnesota house and Senate Judicial Committees have refused to accept testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary from 100s of Minnesota Citizens. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out, the Judges press to take away our right to vote on the wrongful pretext that the allegedly pristine Minnesota judicial system will be corrupted if Minnesota Citizens continue to be allowed to vote for judges.

Whereas,

6) Direct Access of Citizens to the Grand Jury

The original Minnesota Constitution provides for direct access by citizens to grand juries. However, Republicans and Democrats alike have put in place rules to prevent citizen access to grand juries. Minnesota Government attorneys, judges and the legal system now act as gatekeepers for grand juries, to prevent citizens from bring complaints of Government corruption to citizen grand juries.

Whereas,

7) What’s more important? WE THE PEOPLE or Corrupt Judges

The original Minnesota Constitution provided for the Minnesota Legislature to oversee and discipline Minnesota Judges. Instead, Democrats and Republicans have delegated the fox to guard the hen house.

The Minnesota Legislature put the Minnesota Supreme Court in charge of overseeing and disciplining itself, lower Judges and Minnesota lawyers. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (LPRB) and the Minnesota Board of judicial Standards (BJS) are supposed to receive, investigate and recommend disposition of these complaints.

The Problem is that LBRP and BJS are “black holes”. Unless the Judge is disciplined, there is no way to know what if any investigation was done. The Supreme Court has designated that the evidential standard for the wrong doing of Judges and Lawyers is “Clear and Convincing”.

WE THE PEOPLE, the rank and file having no formal understanding of Court Rules and the standards of evidence, it is unlikely that most rank and file citizens could put together a complaint that meets the standard of “Clear and Convincing”. Worse, the lawyers and judges know the rules and know how not to provide “Clear and Convincing” of their wrong doing to their clients. Most of WE THE PEOPLE do not even ever recognize we have been betrayed by our own lawyers… or if we do, it is too late to document it in such a way to provide “Clear and Convincing” evidence.

Why have the Minnesota Legislators written or allowed to be written rules that protect corrupt judges and lawyers more than WE THE PEOPLE.

Whereas,

8) The legal profession may have been necessary at the beginning of the Country, but literacy rates have improved such that most high school graduates could represent themselves in most matters if the laws, court rules and case law were written plainly and in simple English. Further, as demonstrated by the Minnesota Findings that Minnesota Lawyers are not required to treat their clients ethically, Lawyers current use the laws and rules to the disadvantage of their own clients. Finally, lawyers are so expensive as to prohibit many people from hiring one. Straight forward, simple English laws and court rules would allow them to better represent themselves.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLATFORM SHOULD BE INCORPORATED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING:

1) Judicial Decisions should be based on the Rule of Law applied to the facts in evidence;

2) Judges should not be able to accept bribes;

3) The Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct (formerly known as a Code of ethics) should be an implied covenant of every contract between a citizen and a Minnesota Lawyer;

4) Discreet voice recording devices should be allowed in the Court room;

5) WE THE PEOPLE’s constitutional right to vote for judges should not be taken away;

6) Citizens should have direct access to Grand Juries;

7) Government should be more concerned about protecting WE THE PEOPLE from corrupt judges than they are in protecting judges from WE THE PEOPLE. (clear and convincing)

8) That the entire legal code, court rules and case law be written in simple English so that Citizens with a high school degree that can represent themselves. That the Legislature of the State be required to undertake this task immediately and resolve all conflicts in cases law in so doing. That thereafter, every 10 years, the Legislature will meet to incorporate all interim case law in the code and resolve all conflicting case law rulings.

In closing,

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last sentence, US Declaration of Independence

(http://bit.ly/ruPE7z )

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot

WHO KNEW WHAT-WHEN?

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!

_________________________________

MINNESOTA STATE CAPITOL

FAMILY COURT INJUSTICE

Bold Reforms Proposed in Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Petitions For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus

LETTER SENT TO 150 STATE REPS AND SENATORS

Reblogged from Carver County Corruption

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

Posted on March 14, 2013


Dakota County neighbors Carver County in Minnesota. Both Dakota and Carver County are in the First District Court.
[letter sent to 150 state reps and senators]

Judge Denies Mother Contact With Her Children
The case of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki and her children.

Dakota County Judge David Knutson issued an order on September 7, 2012 that denies the mother of five children any contact with her children. He ordered mother to vacate her home of 15 years on the same day as the court order. Mother was able to take only a suitcase of her clothes. She was forced to leave her home and all of her possessions which she has never been able to recover. She was denied any due process. She was told she would be arrested and jailed if she refused to follow Judge Knutson’s orders. She now is homeless, has no vehicle, no bank accounts, no credit cards, and no assets other than her clothing. She has only her job as an airline flight attendant which she has held for approx 27 years while taking leaves to care for her children. As a professional flight attendant, she is routinely tested for alcohol and substance abuse. All her independent psychological evaluations are completely normal.


Her wages are garnished 25% for payment of past marital taxes even though mother has been left destitute with prior use of MN Care Insurance and food stamps after the divorce. Her ex-husband’s income is in excess of $200,000 per month and he retains all of the marital property. There was no hearing or any finding that she ever hurt or abused any of her five children in any way.


The five children, ages 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16, were ordered to live in the custody of two aunts. The four youngest children have lived with their maternal aunt for almost six months without support from anyone. The children have not had or been allowed any contact with their mother except for one three-hour heavily supervised visit in late December, 2012. They have not had any contact with their father who has physically and sexually abused them and who hate him. In court on February 26, 2013, this aunt said she no longer is willing to provide for the children. The oldest child, a boy 16 years old, now lives in the former home of his mother with his father, who we believe a car and other expensive gifts in an attempt to buy the boy’s loyalty. The four youngest children no longer have a relationship with their oldest brother.


Why did all of this happen? In late August, 2012, Judge Knutson appointed an “expert” to make a recommendation on the parenting of the children. This expert, Dr. Paul Reitman, met with four of the children for about thirty minutes. He conducted no other evaluations, tests, or analysis. Yet, on the basis of this meeting, he issued his report that the problem was caused by the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a condition of the mother. Parental Alienation has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. They believe it to be unsubstantiated. In fact, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCI)  has published guidelines stating that “The theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community.”


Nevertheless, Judge Knutson appointed another expert, Dr. James Gilbertson, to attempt to re-unify the children with their abusive father. He said he would “reprogram” the children to like their father—he saw them 3 times in 6 months. This failed leading to the February 26, 2013 hearing. At this hearing, Dr. Gilbertson arranged for the children to appear before Judge Knutson in a conference room. Judge Knutson listened to the children’s short statements and told them he was going to issue orders that they had to follow. The transcript of this meeting has been ordered. The mother has requested information from Gilbertson and Reitman such as appointment dates, payment history, and other documents, but these have been denied by the practitioners saying they are protected by the judge and do not need to follow the guidelines of their respective professional organizations. Judge Knutson has not allowed the opinions of any other professionals to be heard.


The four youngest children will now be homeless. They begged to be with their mother. Their lives have been seriously disrupted. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, initially agreed that they belonged with their mother. Her story has now changed. She told the children that everything had been given to their father, and that their mother was homeless and without a vehicle. (The children reported this information to their mother at the late December 2012 meeting.) Ms. Friedrich also informed the children that their mother was in a mental institution, in jail, had moved to Philadelphia, PA, had been fired from her job, and that mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Julie also told the children that their mother didn’t want them and that she was gone. She informed Dr. Gilbertson that no further contact between mother and children should take place. Mother has not been allowed to schedule any further visits with her children despite numerous attempts.

 

The youngest child, 10 years old, has a significant medical condition that since his birth has been attended to solely by his mother. His complex medical issues include dealing with numerous doctors, surgeries, and providing day to day care and attention. Over the last 10 years mother has been the sole provider of his care along with his pediatrician, Dr. Tim Anderson, who in a letter and in a conversation with Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich, stated that his mother has been the sole provider of his medical care and in the best interest of the child he should be with his mother due to her history of care and knowledge of all factors relating to him. He is placed at risk without her care.


Mother was the beneficiary of a life insurance purchased by her father, now deceased, that provided $1.3 million for mother’s use. This total amount was exhausted in the spring of 2012 when mother was ordered by Judge Knutson to pay substantial amounts for attorney’s fees and debts that became hers as a result of the original judgment and decree. She is now Pro Se, unable to afford her own attorney.


When David Rucki failed to pay the court ordered child support, the state pulled his driver’s license. Judge Knutson wrote an order to child support and the state noting that David’s license was not to be revoked now or in the future. This ruling breaks state and federal law. His passport also was removed according to state and federal law due to child support arrears, yet Judge Knutson is attempting to over-rule federal law by reinstating his passport in defiance of the Dakota County District Attorney’s affidavit telling the judge that he cannot do this as he has no authority to over-rule the US Department of State. This is clearly out of Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction, yet he has scheduled a hearing on the matter.


Judge Knutson refused to order the normal parental arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other parent visitation. He refused to follow Minnesota laws on parenting. He refused to give mother any due process or to follow court rules of procedure. There is no penalty or consequence to him because of his violation of law and other abuses. He is not accountable to anyone. Judge Knutson is actually a member of the Board of Judicial Standards where complaints against judges are sent! He has refused to remove himself from the case, denied a change of venue, and no action has been taken against him for the clear violations he has enforced. A letter of complaint about Judge Knutson’s actions to the Board of Judicial Standards from concerned citizens in the Burnsville, Lakeville, and Eagan area had no effect whatsoever. Clearly, this needs to be changed. There needs to be legislative oversight of the judiciary.


Grazzini-Rucki Radio Interview

COOL CHICK RADIO

CORRUPTION PROOF

  

PLEASE DON’T THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT THIS IS ONLY ONE CASE – ITS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY TO MEN AND WOMEN ALIKE. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOU? 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE COOL CHICK RADIO INTERVIEW WITH SAM

THE FEDERAL LAW SUIT BEGINS – HERE IS THE LINK! 

HERE IS A LOCAL NEWS STORY ABOUT IT AS WELL <<< CLICK AND LISTEN

“GIFTS” ARE LEGAL …. ANYONE WONDER WHY THE WORLD SEEMS JACKED UP

$150 `gifts` (bribes) For Judges Under a rule judges made for their benefit only, they can take $150 secret `gifts` (bribes) from lawyers, special interests and anyone else. They can keep these `gifts` (bribes) secret – they do not have to report them to anyone. They can take unlimited number of these `gifts` (bribes) – as many as they want. The rule is on the internet, you can see it yourself.

The rule is part of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. The paragraph that states the rule is very convoluted. In simplified language it states that a judge can accept:

`Any other gift, loan, bequest, or other thing of value not exceeding $150, if the source of person is not a party or other person who, directly or indirectly, has come or is likely to come before the judge, or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.` 

The rule allows a lawyer or person to appear before a judge even if a partner or associate gives the judge $150 gifts (bribes). Thus, law firms commonly designate a `DE` (designated entertainer) to give judge gifts up to $150 in value. DEs do not appear in court.

To see the rule, go to a search engine like Google and enter <Minnesota Canons Judicial Conduct> Scroll to 3 (D) (5) (h) to see the language quoted above. A judge must report the gift only if it is more than $150 in amount or value.

`That is scandalous` former Governor Quie said when he learned that judges can take up to $150 gifts from lawyers, special interests, and others. It is more than that – it is outrageous. Judges know they can take $150 `gifts` – as many as they want – and keep it a secret. They are well aware of their rules of judicial conduct. Many judges accept these secret gifts. If they do not, the rule would obviously be unnecessary and could be eliminated.

Legislators, legislative employees and employees of the executive (governor`s) branch of state government cannot accept `gifts` (bribes) in any amount over $5. This is because a code of ethics exists for the legislative and executive branches of state of government. There should be such a code for the judicial branch of government but there is not.

The legislator should outlaw `gifts` by anyone to judges except from members of their immediate family as other states have done. Judges should be required to publicly disclose all gifts received from anyone other than their immediate family. `Gifts` to judges promote judicial corruption and undermine justice. 

How many judges do you think take more than $150? More than $100,000?

Lets start here!

Dakota County Judge David Knutson issued an order on September 7, 2012 that denies the mother of five children any contact with her children. He ordered mother to vacate her home of 15 years on the same day as the court order. Mother was able to take only a suitcase of her clothes. She was forced to leave her home and all of her possessions which she has never been able to recover. She was denied any due process. She was told she would be arrested and jailed if she refused to follow Judge Knutson’s orders. She now is homeless, has no vehicle, no bank accounts, no credit cards, and no assets other than her clothing. She has only her job as an airline flight attendant which she has held for approx 27 years while taking leaves to care for her children. As a professional flight attendant, she is routinely tested for alcohol and substance abuse. All her independent psychological evaluations are completely normal.
Her wages are garnished 25% for payment of past marital taxes even though mother has been left destitute with prior use of MN Care Insurance and food stamps after the divorce. Her ex-husband’s income is in excess of $200,000 per month and he retains all of the marital property. There was no hearing or any finding that she ever hurt or abused any of her five children in any way.
See Sandra’s Paycheck Below
(Click on images to view)
The five children, ages 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16, were ordered to live in the custody of two aunts. The four youngest children have lived with their maternal aunt for almost six months without support from anyone. The children have not had or been allowed any contact with their mother except for one three-hour heavily supervised visit in late December, 2012. They have not had any contact with their father who has physically and sexually abused them and who hate him. In court on February 26, 2013, this aunt said she no longer is willing to provide for the children. The oldest child, a boy 16 years old, now lives in the former home of his mother with his father, who we believe a car and other expensive gifts in an attempt to buy the boy’s loyalty. The four youngest children no longer have a relationship with their oldest brother.
Why did all of this happen? In late August, 2012, Judge Knutson appointed an “expert” to make a recommendation on the parenting of the children. This expert, Dr. Paul Reitman, met with four of the children for about thirty minutes. He conducted no other evaluations, tests, or analysis. Yet, on the basis of this meeting, he issued his report that the problem was caused by the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a condition of the mother. Parental Alienation has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. They believe it to be unsubstantiated. In fact, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCI)  has published guidelines stating that “The theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community.”
Nevertheless, Judge Knutson appointed another expert, Dr. James Gilbertson, to attempt to re-unify the children with their abusive father. He said he would “reprogram” the children to like their father—he saw them 3 times in 6 months. This failed leading to the February 26, 2013 hearing. At this hearing, Dr. Gilbertson arranged for the children to appear before Judge Knutson in a conference room. Judge Knutson listened to the children’s short statements and told them he was going to issue orders that they had to follow. The transcript of this meeting has been ordered. The mother has requested information from Gilbertson and Reitman such as appointment dates, payment history, and other documents, but these have been denied by the practitioners saying they are protected by the judge and do not need to follow the guidelines of their respective professional organizations. Judge Knutson has not allowed the opinions of any other professionals to be heard.
The four youngest children will now be homeless. They begged to be with their mother. Their lives have been seriously disrupted. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, initially agreed that they belonged with their mother. Her story has now changed. She told the children that everything had been given to their father, and that their mother was homeless and without a vehicle. (The children reported this information to their mother at the late December 2012 meeting.) Ms. Friedrich also informed the children that their mother was in a mental institution, in jail, had moved to Philadelphia, PA, had been fired from her job, and that mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Julie also told the children that their mother didn’t want them and that she was gone. She informed Dr. Gilbertson that no further contact between mother and children should take place. Mother has not been allowed to schedule any further visits with her children despite numerous
attempts.
The youngest child, 10 years old, has a significant medical condition that since his birth has been attended to solely by his mother. His complex medical issues include dealing with numerous doctors, surgeries, and providing day to day care and attention. Over the last 10 years mother has been the sole provider of his care along with his pediatrician, Dr. Tim Anderson, who in a letter and in a conversation with Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich, stated that his mother has been the sole provider of his medical care and in the best interest of the child he should be with his mother due to her history of care and knowledge of all factors relating to him. He is placed at risk without her care.
Mother was the beneficiary of a life insurance purchased by her father, now deceased, that provided $1.3 million for mother’s use. This total amount was exhausted in the spring of 2012 when mother was ordered by Judge Knutson to pay substantial amounts for attorney’s fees and debts that became hers as a result of the original judgment and decree. She is now Pro Se, unable to afford her own attorney.
When David Rucki failed to pay the court ordered child support, the state pulled his driver’s license. Judge Knutson wrote an order to child support and the state noting that David’s license was not to be revoked now or in the future. This ruling breaks state and federal law. His passport also was removed according to state and federal law due to child support arrears, yet Judge Knutson is attempting to over-rule federal law by reinstating his passport in defiance of the Dakota County District Attorney’s affidavit telling the judge that he cannot do this as he has no authority to over-rule the US Department of State. This is clearly our of Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction, yet he has scheduled a hearing on the matter.
Judge Knutson refused to order the normal parental arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other parent visitation. He refused to follow Minnesota laws on parenting. He refused to give mother any due process or to follow court rules of procedure. There is no penalty or consequence to him because of his violation of law and other abuses. He is not accountable to anyone. Judge Knutson is actually a member of the Board of Judicial Standards where complaints against judges are sent! He has refused to remove himself from the case, denied a change of venue, and no action has been taken against him for the clear violations he has enforced. A letter of complaint about Judge Knutson’s actions to the Board of Judicial Standards from concerned citizens in the Burnsville, Lakeville, and Eagan area had no effect whatsoever. Clearly, this needs to be changed. There needs to be legislative oversight of the judiciary.
%d bloggers like this: