SHOCKING!

It came as no surprise that the MN Court of Appeals rubber stamped the decision of the Dakota County District Court in my case no. 19HA-CR-15-4227 State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold.

Criminal appeals are handled by a battery of anonymous law clerks who know that they have to uphold the conviction no matter what. They write memos for the judges that are mostly if not entirely based on the prosecution brief and they draft the  decisions affirming the conviction.

The opinion affirmed the fact that illegally withholding and suppressing evidence, witness tampering, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, obstruction of justice and trial by ambush is perfectly acceptable, and in fact, encouraged.

Gallery For > Courtroom Lawyer Cartoon

Remember, a jury verdict is only as fair as the trial, and in this case as well as the companion cases, a fair trial or appeal was never going to happen!

The tragic reality is that you can be a law abiding citizen and have your freedom and rights taken away under the current  system. The bright side is that many people are waking up and when you’re aware of the operation you can defeat it!

 

 

Comment on Corruption of the judiciary: Where do we go for help?

Tru Tuoneself
Oct 19, 2016 @ 09:28:08

I was a lawyer, fought judicial corruption in three Texas Counties and at the highest levels of government. I am no longer a lawyer. We are well beyond citing proper law my friends. I investigated, documented and testified in state courts, appellate courts, the Texas Supreme Court, regarding the corruption and I am an expert on recognizing and documenting corruption. What I can tell you is we are at war my fellow commoners, at war! The enemy is just not coming to our shores with tanks and planes, but surreptitiously has taken over our government, one office at a time, one judge position at a time, one court clerk position at a time and it is only going to get far worse, before it gets better. When someone is overly arrogant and seems not worried about the courts or law enforcement, you will know why soon enough. The arrogance gives it away and the refusal and disrespect for the law does as well. They will not enforce the laws, investigate or prosecute and they will continue to permit the pillaging, while slowly changing the laws till we all find ourselves in Nazi America. Drastic times require drastic measures. See you on the front lines.

Advertisements

Is Minnesota Safe with Judge David Knutson on the Bench? In Three High-Profile Cases, Showed Leniency to Dangerous Child Abusers

(Courtroom 2F, Dakota County Judicial Center, MinnesotaJudge David L. Knuston aka “Korrupt Knutson” presides over yet another controversial case – this time giving a drastic downward departure, meaning a sentence more lenient than recommended by guidelines, for an unlicensed daycare provider convicted of brutally assaulting, and nearly killing, a 13 month old boy.

Due to the severity of the injuries, the child was not expected to survive – today he is 2 years old and suffering from permanent brain damage.

Has justice been served? In two separate high-profile cases – the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki divorce/custody case and the criminal trial of child predator Dennis Roy – Judge Knutson showed leniency to a perpetrator of child abuse, and gave sympathy instead of prison.

A deeper look into all three of these cases suggests a pattern that Judge Knutson’s reckless disregard for the safety of children, and for public safety, has enabled dangerous abusers to avoid the punishment their heinous crimes warrant. Is the public safe with Judge Knutson on the bench?

#1 – The Merchant Case (2016/2017) : No Prison for Daycare Provider Who Nearly Killed a Toddler

Source: pinterest

Background: On September 22, 2016, parents Jessica and John Merchant say their child “WM” was in good health, and showed no sign of any problems, the day he was dropped off at the home of Mariel Alexandra Grimm. Grimm, a mother and unlicensed daycare provider, had been watching “WM” since he was 9 weeks old. Grimm says that after being dropped off at her home that day, “WM” was at a usual level of activity, and that he “he was playing on the floor with some toys and seemed fine…” The day started off like any other, then ended in tragedy.

Grimm was the only adult in the home the day “WM” suffered a near fatal brain injury. At the time, Grimm was caring for 5 five other children – four of her children who were being home-schooled, and another daycare child.

“WM” was dropped off at 7:15 am; Grimm said she cuddled with “WM” and then laid him down in a pack n’ play. Grimm then went upstairs, and left “WM” alone, in the basement, to nap. At 8:47 am, Grimm heard “WM” crying and went to change his diaper, and brought him upstairs where he ate some cereal. After breakfast, Grimm brought “WM” back to the pack n’ play, and left him alone in the basement again so she could home-school her 4 children in the upstairs level of the home. In her statement to police, Grimm did not recall how long “WM” slept.

When “WM” woke again, Grimm went to change his diaper and noticed “WM” was stiff and unconscious. Grimm tried to rouse “WM” but he would not respond. Grimm then called Jessica Merchant who instructed her to call 911. The 911 call was made at 12:51 pm, an ambulance arrived soon after. When medics arrived, they found Grimm holding “WM” – who had a pulse but was breathing very shallow and was unresponsive. Medics noted that one of “WM”’s pupils was extremely dilated, and the other was not, a sign of head trauma. At the hospital, “WM” was diagnosed with a massive subdural hematoma (a build up of blood between the layers of tissue that cover the brain, a sign of severe trauma) and required emergency surgery.

Physicians treating “WM” stated that he would have become unresponsive immediately after or shortly after the head trauma occurred. The physicians also testified that type of trauma “WM” suffered is beyond what a toddler would experience if they had a normal fall or bump to the head, and the severity of the injury is consistent with being violently shaken or thrown. Meaning the greater force applied to the head, the more severe the damage to the brain and functioning will be. A severely injured infant would not be able to regulate any behavior requiring higher cortical functions, such as eating, sitting, playing, laughing, or walking – which is how “WM” now presents.

“WM” was diagnosed as suffering from abusive head trauma. He required surgery to remove a part of his skull in order to alleviate the swelling around the brain and spent months in the hospital. Medical experts testified that the injury inflicted on “WM” is consistent with “a violent acceleration-deceleration event, such as a high-speed motor vehicle collision or being severely shaken or thrown..”

An online comment says this about the case: “..Her (Grimm) story has changed repeatedly — her timeline is both inconsistent and incoherent and isn’t supported by the physical evidence.

Her daughter testified that the boy woke up crying while Mariel was in the shower, her daughter got her mother out of the shower who was angry about it, then Mariel was heard yelling at the boy to shut up. He then went entirely silent.

The boy suffered permanent and severely debilitating brain damage. To the extent that he is expected to remain a toddler in his capabilities for the rest of his life (though he is hoped to exceed those expectations). The damage was described, by one of the premier pediatric neurosurgical and neurological teams in the entire United States, as one of the worst cases of TBI that they’ve ever seen…Comment VO

Grimm noted in an online post that attorneys were “happy” that Judge Knutson was appointed to her case, and they had good reason to be considering the favorable outcome she would receive. Grimm was convicted in July 2017 by a jury of 1stdegree felony assault; sentencing occurred in September 2017.

“WM”, an adorable little boy with eyes that smile, chubby cheeks and golden blond hair, suffered from permanent brain damage and will never fully recover from injuries. The rest of his childhood will include continued medical treatment, and uncertainty. The Merchants said during their victim impact statement that “WM” cannot walk, requires a feeding tube, and suffers from seizures and intractable pain.

Mother, Jessica Merchant, said,” It is impossible to convey the tragedy and depth of devastation and sorrow as we watched our son fight for his life for days and weeks…

His life has been forever altered. Instead of wondering where he’ll go to college, or if he’ll be an engineer like his daddy, or a teacher like his mama, or an astronaut or a writer or an athlete, we have to wonder if he’ll even be able to have a job … to participate in school … to live on his own.”

Many in the courtroom cried after listening to the heart-wrenching victim impact statement. The Merchants asked Grimm be given the harshest sentence possible.

Despite the severity of “W.M’s” injuries, Judge Knutson showed sympathy – not to the “W.M.” or to the Merchant family but to the woman convicted of shaking the child, Mariel Grimm. Knutson praised Grimm for “cooperating” with the prosecutor’s office and her attitude in court; to which Judge Knutson bizarrely notes,”She has expressed ongoing love and support for the victim..” An “expression of love” does NOT involve violently shaking or throwing a toddler, causing his brain to hemorrhage!

Judge Knutson said he was also touched by the letters of support for Grimm but ignored the victim impact statement of the child’s parents, and the reaction of the public to it. 

Prosecutor Heather Pipenhagen said, “All of Ms. Grimm’s good qualities … do not mitigate what she did on September 22, 2016 to this child..Make no mistake, she took his life. He’s alive, but Ms. Grimm took his life.”

Grimm was facing up to 8 years in prison but in an act of misplaced mercy, Judge Knutson stayed the sentence so that Grimm will avoid prison. Instead, Grimm will spend up to 90 days in county jail but could be released in as little as 60 days. Grimm could also be released from jail to attend counseling appointments, and to home-school her 4 children. In addition, Grimm has been sentenced to 60 days of electronic home monitoring, 200 hours of community service and 15 years of probation. Grimm has an open case with CPS, her children were not removed from her home, but she has been required to be supervised when with them. As part of the conditions for probation Grimm is required to follow all directions of CPS. Grimm says she is innocent, that “WM” came to her home with injury, and plans to appeal.

A Fundraiser has been set up to help the Merchant family pay “W.M.’s” medical bills: Help with Medical Bills

Read More About the Merchant Case:

Daycare provider Mariel Grimm gets probation in shaken baby case (City Pages)

Eagan day care provider sentenced after baby left brain damaged (Twincities.com)

Eagan Day Care Provider Guilty Of Assaulting Toddler (Patch)

 

#2 – Dennis Roy Case (May 2013) : Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist, Victim Imprisoned By Ongoing Trauma, Flashbacks

f977a5803269bd9513becb79f34711aa

Dennis Michael Roy, pleaded guilty to felony first-degree criminal sexual conduct after raping and repeatedly assaulting a 5-year old girl, a relative, from Eagan (Case No. 19HA-CR-12-495).

Roy faced a maximum of 30 years in prison and $40,000 in fines…but instead he walked free. Roy appeared before Judge David L. Knutson, who handed down his sentence on March 22, 2013. Judge Knutson sentenced Roy to a 16-year stayed prison term and 20 years of probation.

In September 2014, Roy was found guilty of a probation violation for loitering in public with an open bottle of alcohol. He served 45 days in jail.Roy has 18 prior convictions, including second-degree burglary, multiple motor-vehicle thefts, multiple DUIs, trespassing, disorderly conduct and multiple domestic assaults.

The child involved continues to struggle with the assault, and suffers severely from the effects of trauma with flashbacks, anxiety and depression.

Read More on the Roy Case:

Never Forget: Judge Knutson – Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist

Child Rapist Gets Stayed Prison Term, 20 Years Probation

 

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Divorce/Custody Case: Abuser Given Sole Custody of Children He Victimized, Lifetime Ban From Children Against Protective Mother

Judge Knutson is the family court judge who presided over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody trial after it was illegally re-opened. Judge Knutson also demanded that ALL legal matters concerning the Grazzini-Rucki family be placed under his jurisdiction alone, and no other. By “coincidence” all the judges appointed to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s other legal matters (appellate, child support, criminal) share a connection to Judge Knutson, and all have issued extremely harsh rulings against her – even violating the law to do so.

In September 2012, Judge Knutson court ordered the removal of mother and primary caregiver, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, from the home, causing all five children to run away after hearing the news. Judge Knutson instilled paternal aunt, Tammy Jo Love, a temporary guardian. Love had previously lost custody of her children due to drug use. The Rucki children feared Love, and say she mistreated them (one of the children told police after running away that Love hit her). Judge Knutson’s irrational decision came after allegations of sexual abuse involving two of the children were raised, which he was fully aware of. The Rucki children were apprehended and put into the care of a maternal aunt while Judge Knutson continued to work to give abuser, David Rucki, custody of the children who were so desperate to escape his abuse.

Instead of protecting the five Rucki children, Judge Knutson sought to isolate the children so they would have no avenue for help. Judge Knutson worked to give the abusive father complete control over the children – directly putting them in harm’s way. For the Rucki children, their childhood died the day their loving and protective mother was removed from their home, and their life, their existence would become a nightmare involving continued legal chaos and abuse; that would be impossible to escape, even as adults.

The traumatized Rucki children were then court ordered into reunification with identified abuser, father David Rucki. Some of the visits were facilitated in the Dakota County Judicial Center, where Judge Knutson used the court bailiffs to guard the doors so the children could not escape. Witnesses reported hearing the anguished cries of the children from behind closed doors during “reunification”. In another incident, the youngest child was heard screaming like a wounded animal, held captive by a therapist bent on “deprogramming”. The older siblings made efforts to help but were prevented and eventually separated from the younger siblings so they would be easier to control. Judge Knutson’s failure to protect the five Rucki children from the physical, mental and sexual abuse perpetrated by their father, David Rucki, has directly lead to these children being further abused, and now held captive by a custody ruling that has sentenced them to a life of torture.

Judge Knutson’s failure to consider the safety of the Rucki children created a crisis in which two of the eldest Rucki sisters ran away again on April 19, 2013, again citing fear for their safety when Judge Knutson attempted to place them again into the care of Tammy Jo Love.

While the eldest sisters were still missing, Judge Knutson ordered a custody trial, to be held on September 11-12, 2013 (note: the custody trial was held in the same courtroom as the Mariel Grimm criminal trial). During trial, Judge Knutson ordered Sandra’s attorney to proceed with while handcuffed and strapped to a wheelchair, without her client present, and no files, and not even her shoes or glasses. The custody trial was rife with due process violations, Constitutional violations, and legal error – in effect was a rigged trial masterminded by Judge Knutson. Under circumstances of great injustice, in November 2013, David Rucki was granted sole custody of all 5 children. At the time of the court order, Rucki was on probation for violating a protective order issued against him, after his continued abuse of Sandra. Judge Knutson later slapped a lifetime ban against loving and protective mother, Sandra – prohibiting her from any physical, verbal, or written contact with her children. Sandra has not seen or heard from her children in over 5 years, and grieves their loss every day, in every breath, she takes.

The two oldest Rucki sisters remained in hiding, living on a therapeutic horse ranch, and refusing to return to their father, David Rucki, stating he abused them. Witnesses say both girls exhibited emotional and physical symptoms consistent with abuse. On the ranch the sisters were well cared for, and nurtured, and began to not only heal but thrive in their new environment, which they considered home. Tragically in November 2015, after 2 years the sisters were discovered, and despite their pleas for help, and the recommendation of a social worker to keep them in foster care for their safety, Judge Michael Mayer (a close friend of Judge Knutson) returned the sisters back into the custody of David Rucki. To attest to his violent nature, Rucki was on probation for a violent road rage incident at the time the girls were put into his care.

Sandra was later convicted of 6 counts of felony deprivation for her efforts to assist her daughters, who ran away from abuse. She has filed an appeal, and has not stopped fighting for justice, and to keep her children safe from abuse.

The Grazzini-Rucki case is yet another example of Judge Knutson showing preference to a dangerous abuser, and purposefully ignoring the safety concerns and well-being of a vulnerable child. Yet again, the abuser is given protective status while the child is placed in harm’s way, with the assistance of Judge Knutson.

Against all logic, Judge Knutson has shown sympathy to dangerous child predators and abusers. Criminals go free when jail is warranted, and vulnerable children are denied the justice and protection they deserve.

Is Minnesota safe with Judge Knutson on the bench?

Minnesota Teacher-Student Sexual Relationships

Dakota Co. Attorney James C. Backstrom

 

”Quite frankly, it should be a crime,” said County Attorney Backstrom.  He pushed to change the law after a similar case nearly a decade ago.

In light of the new cases, he says he will once again encourage lawmakers to make teacher-student sexual relationships illegal, regardless of the student’s age.

“I’ll raise this issue again with legislators here in Dakota County and hopefully get the bill introduced again next session, Backstrom said. “I think it’s worth another try.”

KARE 11 Investigates: Teacher-student sex not always illegal in Minnesota

Lou Raguse, KARE 10:22 PM. CDT October 04, 2017

BURNSVILLE, Minn. – A county prosecutor is calling for a change in Minnesota law – to make it illegal for teachers to have sexual contact with high school students, regardless of their age.

Currently, it’s not a crime in Minnesota for a teacher to have sexual relations with a student who is at least 18 years old.

And recent cases reviewed in a KARE 11 investigation, raise questions about how Minnesota holds teachers accountable if they do have sex with their students.

In some cases, KARE 11 learned state education officials won’t even investigate.

“It just eats at you, because you put this trust in these people to protect them,” said the mother of one student.

Continue Reading: http://www.kare11.com/news/kare-11-investigates-teacher-student-sex-not-always-illegal-in-minnesota/480903753


Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Media promotes stories that create societal outrage and the solution is always more legislation and initiatives, tougher laws, more law enforcement, more training, etc. None of these solutions make a meaningful difference in preventing sex offenses and really just appease our need to feel that we are protecting children and that our legislature is addressing the issue.

State laws regarding “consensual sex” (referred to generally as statutory rape laws) prohibit adult-child relationships but define childhood differently, depending upon the state.

What is the Minnesota Age of Consent?

The Minnesota Age of Consent is 16 years old. In the United States, the age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 15 or younger in Minnesota are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape.

Minnesota statutory rape law is violated when a person has consensual sexual intercourse with an individual under age 16, although it is raised to 18 when the offender is an authority figure. If the younger party is 13-15, their partners must be no more then 2 years older, and children under 13 may only consent to those less than 36 months older.

Age of consent laws are tied into other statues such as those of rape and sexually assaulting and raping somebody is already a crime.

A very wise saying. Those who expect a new law to magically make all that nasty bad behavior disappear fool themselves. You can change said behavior by several means, but making laws is not one of them.

“There is no simple fix to the devastating problem of sex abuse. Instead of politically popular measures that make no difference we need to turn our attention and resources to ways of addressing the epidemic of sex abuse that, while perhaps not as politically popular, will actually work so that more potential victims can be spared.” Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

Criminalizing Whistleblowers

© 2015 Red Herring Alert. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: Red Herring Alert is an information and news organization. The information provided on this blog is intended as information only and is not intended to be legal advice. Each author on the blog provides information, personal opinion, and insight. None of the writers are attorneys, nor are they intending to provide legal advice or assistance with any court case. The writers do not necessarily agree with the opinions or blog posts of all other writers, but we support each other’s rights to free speech. Each writer is responsible for their own research and content.

The courts are continuing to legitimize malicious actions against me to silence me into submission. Yesterday I received 3 new charges for another writer’s posts on Red Herring Alert. At this rate, I will have a life sentence without the possibility of parole in a few months. See previous charges → MINNESOTA: COME ON VACATION-STAY ON PROBATION

Newest Charges Below↓

The system will always make criminals out of those who expose their criminal activities.

MINNESOTA: COME ON VACATION-STAY ON PROBATION

Yes, Minnesota has a low prison population, but that’s not the whole story

__________________________________
Policymakers often cite Minnesota’s low prison population, but the state also has one of the highest rates of probation in the country — a restrictive punishment that often serves as a back door to incarceration.

A familiar argument broke out at the Minnesota Legislature recently.

The committee on public safety was debating a bill that would make it a felony to tamper with a police car, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Rep. Raymond Dehn, a DFLer, commented on the number of similar bills the committee had been hearing, turning lower charges into more serious ones likely to feed the prison population.

If the goal is simply to lock more people up, Dehn said, “I just question why we call this a public safety committee.”

Image result for tony cornish

Rep. Tony Cornish, Committee Chair~Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance

His Republican colleague, Rep. Tony Cornish, swiftly chimed in that he doesn’t mind sending more people to prison if they deserve it. Besides, said Cornish, “we’re still very near the bottom on incarceration per capita in Minnesota.” My comments in red (Hey Tony, who decides if they deserve it? Oh yeah, the judicial mafia that’s who!)

COMING SOON: Audio on Cornish’s views regarding judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

This is a common refrain in discussions about prison policy. And Cornish is right: Minnesota’s incarceration rate is one of the lowest in the United States.

But that’s not the whole story. Minnesota also claims one of the highest rates of people on probation in the country. One reason this matters is that people on probation or supervised release — Minnesota’s version of parole — frequently do end up in prison for “technical violations,” such as missing meetings with a supervision officer or failing drug tests. Last year, two-thirds of the state’s prison admissions were there because of technical violations.

Critics like Rep. Marion O’Neill, R-Maple Lake, think it’s time for that to change. Last week, O’Neill brought advocates in to testify on a proposal in the House that would mandate supervision officers to look for alternatives to prison when non-violent drug offenders commit technical violations.

Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/yes-minnesota-has-a-low-prison-population-but-that-s-not-the-whole-story/416958333/

__________________________________________________________________________________

Below is my alleged probation violation

Judge Asphaug has already had me serve more time than 80% of her perpetrators of sexual violence against children.

Click to enlarge

See Dangerous State of Justice  I don’t know about you, but this looks a lot like retaliation to me! See Appeal Reply Brief Evavold

Judge Karen Asphaug

Judge Asphaug stated I was “motivated by political ill will and distrust of government.”

At the sentencing hearing Judge Asphaug once again stated, “The mother perhaps was motivated by animosity or malice towards the father. Perhaps her motivation was a misplaced belief (or misplaced evidence) that the girls weren’t safe, but what motivated you to become involved? Not to become involved in, but to intrude into the life of another family? Not friendship for the girls or with the girls: You never met them before the day they were taken from their home. Not friendship with their mother because you knew her only briefly. We’re left to wonder if you were motivated by political persuasion, by distrust of the courts, by a desire to pursue an activist agenda of some sort.”

What’s really interesting is that my probation officer has never even addressed this false order in any of my face-to-face meetings and suddenly, I’m violating probation? This comes on the heels of the false HRO that was filed against me and signed by Judge Asphaug. → NOTICE OF OBJECTIŌNE

Clearly, my probation is being supervised by Judge Asphaug and the Communitiy Corrections staff are “just following orders”. Also, below is an email regarding my psychological evaluation that suddently and mysteriously doesn’t seem to meet probation requirements.

From: Dede Evavold
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 1:11 PM                                                    Image result for dakota county community corrections apple valley
To: ‘greg.stoeckmann@co.dakota.mn.us’
Subject: CASE NO. 19HA-CR-15-4227

Greg,

I have completed my psychological evaluation which was approved by Natalie Christensen, Dakota County Community Corrections (see attachment). I was told that I was to complete an MMPI with an interview afterwards, which I did.

I’m curious as to why there was ex-parte communication with the judge and why this was flagged by a probation officer months after the acceptance of the evaluation.

A neutral evaluator found nothing wrong with my cognitive abilities or mental health. My concern is that something is needing to be found by Gregory Hanson, PhD, LP who is a for-profit evaluator under contract with Dakota County.

Also, Gregory Hanson was the practitioner that conducted evaluations of two other persons involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case. “The potential for a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one, can compromise objectivity.” AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment

Normally, forensic psychological evaluations are ordered to determine competency to stand trial, asserting a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, sentence mitigation or testamentary capacity. I have already been falsely convicted and sentenced, so clearly this is just further harassment by Dakota County.

I am also confused as to why I was contacted by probation officer Jeremy Lehto from Stearns County regarding transferring my probation. I was not made aware of this by Dakota County and Jeremy also found it odd that I was not contacted. I was told by Dakota County at my initial meeting that I do not meet the requirements of a probation transfer to my county of residence due to the low risk status.

I have complied with my probation requirements and the unwarranted request to take another psychological evaluation is clearly being done to harass, punish and retaliate against me for exposing the obstruction of justice in this case.

Let’s talk about the right to free speech…

The First Amendment provides in part that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

All convicted felons still have the right to free speech, even while in prison. Falsely convicted felons also have the right to free speech, even when they’re not in prison.

Judges often call gag orders “protective orders,” and say they are necessary to protect a person’s right to a fair trial, the fair administration of justice or the sanctity of jury deliberations. Judge Asphaug ordered the gag after the trial and no one else has been gagged except me. Go figure. Everyone else can write about my case and I can’t? Hmmmmm …

Another interesting factor in this case is that Michael Brodkorb (Blogger Extraordinaire for Dakota County) was also slapped with an HRO due to actual harassing and stalking behavior as well as misrepresentation in covering this case. He stated that it was a “violation of his First Amendment rights.” Wait a minute, he’s applauding the court’s decision to violate my rights to free speech. Hypocritical much??!

Anyhow, read excerpts below from the article Blogger Restraining order raises worry for journalists  

“Journalists must, of course, follow the law when doing their job. But aggressive reporting focused on a high-profile suspect of a crime is a legitimate and necessary role for the media.

The chilling effect is that if someone doesn’t like coverage they could go to a courthouse and file what I believe to be a fraudulent document with fictitious information to game the system,” he told the Star Tribune.

Restraining orders are sometimes given quickly by a judge in order to err on the side of protecting someone from being harmed. Later, those restraining orders are sometimes lifted if the judge, upon further evidence, realizes it’s unsupported. In this case the order was tossed out on a technicality before further judicial review could measure its validity. (Those pesky technicalities of illegally withholding/suppressing evidence, witness tampering, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct didn’t really matter in my case did they?!)

The case leaves open the potential that restraining orders could be filed against journalists by anyone who doesn’t like the scrutiny they are receiving. That’s not a comforting thought for journalists or for a society that relies on an unfettered press.”

I’ll leave it at that!

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.

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.