Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Deceptive Dakota County

Image result for mn judicial branch

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading: https://www.scribd.com/document/353993982/Reply-Brief-Evavold

Respondent’s Brief (Dakota Co.)

Appellate Briefs Reveal More Shocking Behavior in Rucki Case

Get the Down and Dirty from Dakota County …

Appellate Briefs Reveal More Shocking Behavior in Rucki Case

** BREAKING NEWS ** From Michael Volpe and PPJ Gazette reporting on the appellate cases of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Dede Evavold

“In separate response briefs to pro se attorneys, the Dakota County Prosecutor’s Office has acknowledged jury tampering, misdirected an allegation of witness tampering, and refused to respond to address all allegations of judicial misconduct in the Rucki case.

The briefs from Dakota County Prosecutor James Backstrom were in response to briefs filed by Dede Evavold and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, both representing themselves.

(James Backstrom)

Evavold has been representing herself after the state ruled her too well off to receive an attorney while Grazzini-Rucki was represented but was so disgusted by her attorney’s brief that she filed one on her own.

Her attorney, Steven Russett, who was provided by the Minnesota Appellate Public Defender’s Office, did not respond to an email and voicemail for comment.

In the most startling admission, the prosecutors acknowledge- responding to Grazzini-Rucki- that a reporter approached the jury while they were in a common area during a lunch break and asked if any wanted to be interviewed when the trial ended.

The reporter’s name is Laura Adelmann, who works for the Sun Current, the hometown newspaper of Lakeville, Minnesota, where the Rucki’s live. “There was one occasion during trial in which it was it was reported to Judge Asphaug that a reporter (I.E. Laura Adelmann) had approached the jurors while they were eating in the common area of the courthouse and asked if she could interview them after the trial was over.” Backstrom’s brief stated.

 This incident occurred on Friday July 18, 2016, while the trial was ongoing, and on Monday July 21, 2016, Judge Asphaug issued this statement to the court gallery.

I also received information that a member of the press approached our jurors last week and asked if jurors would be willing to speak after the trial. It is- I am ordering that you may not approach the jurors in the common area of the courthouse. It is- it has a chilling effect. It concerns jurors don’t do it.” An email to Adelmann was left unreturned. A voicemail to her editor, Tad Johnson, was also left unreturned.

(Judge Asphaug)

Though the trial was covered internationally there was not one story which referred to Asphaug’s statement while the trial was ongoing.

Emails to Karen Zamora and Brandon Stahl, who each covered parts of the trial for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, were left unreturned.

An email to Michael Brodkorb, who has boasted that he covered each day of the trial, was also left unreturned.

Emails to 20/20 host, Elizabeth Vargas, and her two producers, Beth Mullin and Sean Dooley, were also left unreturned; 20/20 covered parts of the trial though it’s not clear if they were there that day.

Beau Berentson said “Our office does not conduct legal research,” in an email.

But when asked if an investigation had been started or if anyone had been disciplined for allowing press to get so close to the jury- a major break in protocol according to everyone this reporter spoke with- Berentson did not respond.

While lawyers who spoke with this reporter said it was unprecedented that press would ever get so close to a jury during trial, they were split on its significance.

Michael McCray, a United States Department of Agriculture whistleblower and lawyer, said he believed that such an interaction would cause all sorts of thoughts to enter a jury’s head “not one will be about the merits of the case.”

Lee Dryer is a Nashville attorney and part-time judge.

No trial is perfect,” Dryer said, but was less concerned since nothing about the case was discussed.

Dryer said he was more concerned with an allegation of witness tampering; Samantha Rucki, Grazzini-Rucki’s daughter who ran away, responded to Kelli Coughlin a Lakeville Police Department Detective, who asked her if she was at a police interview conducted approximately a month before her mother’s trial.

This police interview occurred approximately a month prior to her mother’s trial on June 30, 2016.

“They (her father and his sister) basically said I have to (go to the interview) and I have to be here and I have to recant everything I said and it’s going and that’s the way it’s gonna be- and they made me feel guilty about it and I started to cry.” Samantha responded when asked if she was at the interview of her own free will.

Judge Asphaug refused to allow the interview into Grazzini-Rucki’s trial, Samantha Rucki testified by Skype, with her aunt, grandmother, and attorney in the same room but not in camera, her father was listening in from outside the door.

(David Rucki)

Furthermore, Judge Asphaug would only allow a limited number of questions. Samantha then downplayed the abuse and claimed she ran away to get away from a bad divorce.

Dryer said that having Samantha testify by Skype raises sixth amendment issues, of a defendant confronting their accuser.

Judge Asphaug argued that Samantha was too fragile to see her mother, but child rape victims are forced to confront their alleged rapist if that rapist is to be convicted.

In their response brief, prosecutors argued that since they weren’t directly involved in the witness tampering, they shouldn’t be held responsible.

Appellant (Evavold) fails to detail what misconduct Respondent (Dakota County Prosecutor) engaged in. In support of her argument, Appellant points to an interview that was conducted by law enforcement of SVR (Samantha). Appellant is under the misbelief that Respondent somehow coerced SVR into providing the statement and that SVR lied in the statement.

The prosecutor’s brief only alludes to a police interview but does not detail what Samantha said in the interview.

Dede Evavold also argued that there was judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, charges not answered by Backstrom.

Judge Asphaug placed herself on Evavold’s, Grazzini-Rucki’s, and the Dahlen’s cases, and refused to recuse herself when each of the four defendants asked.

Furthermore, in 2010, she appears to have fixed a case for David Rucki.

On September 8, 2009, David Rucki went into a fit of rage against his neighbors while they were escorting approximately a dozen two and three-year-old children to the daycare facility they ran.

Complainant stated his wife, two children, and six daycare kids ages three and under were in the driveway when suspect (David Rucki) approached. He stated the suspect threatened his wife, his son, and called them all assholes while standing in the cul-de-sac in front of their home. While I was speaking with the complainant, he informed me that the suspect drove by as we were speaking and put up his middle finger on his left hand at him. Complainant said that they have had on-going harassment type issues with the suspect and his dogs as a result of operating a home daycare facility. He said suspect’s dogs repeatedly come into his yard when daycare parents and kids arrive, barking and growling and the guests as the children are dropped off. He said they have tried to talk to the suspect in the past to mediate the situation, but that he no longer feels comfortable due to elevated language and behavior.

Rucki was charged with disorderly conduct and the case came in front of Judge Asphaug. On the eve of trial, Asphaug dismissed the case for a lack of probable cause, an inexplicable decision which has never been explained.

Lack of probable cause applies to cases with little or no evidence not an incident witnessed by several adults and approximately twelve children. Furthermore, if a case is dismissed due to a lack of probable cause it would be during normal pre-trial hearings, not on the eve of trial, and there’s no evidence that any sort of motion was even filed to trigger this.

Asphaug proceeded to exclude approximately 90% of the evidence of abuse: including David Rucki’s police report, all Child Protective Services reports, all orders for protection against David Rucki, and letters, from Sandra Grazzini Rucki’s, Dede Evavold’s, and the Dahlen’s trials.

Backstrom’s office provided answers to most of the charges of judicial misconduct but not all.

For instance, in their reply brief, the prosecution claims that Grazzini-Rucki only referred to three items as being excluded: The Fox 9 Newscast from June 2013, the GPS tracker from when David Rucki placed a tracker under Grazzini-Rucki’s friend and advocate’s car, Michael Rhedin, and Social Services records.

(Prosecutor Kathryn Keena)

But while Grazzini-Rucki did complain about these, and their exclusion is significant, police reports, letters, and other recordings were also excluded; Sandra Grazzini-Rucki complained of clear judicial bias.

The prosecution downplayed in its brief the breadth of the evidence excluded during trial.

Backstrom’s office did not respond to emails for comment.”

 

We’re Not Crazy. . .The Systems Are!

The degree of insanity in the courts is something that is indescribable unless you have witnessed it for yourself. Small is big, left is right, slow is fast, up is down and weak is strong.

A term  has even been coined for individuals that experience psychic injuries due to assaults by legal abuses, ethical violations, betrayals, and fraud in the court system. It’s called “legal abuse syndrome” and was identified by Dr.Karen Huffer, a marriage and family counselor who was also brutally defrauded in the courts.

In my case State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227the court ordered that I complete a forensic psychological evaluation and cognitive skills assessment as I “showed no remorse or comprehension” for my actions. “The absence of remorse should never justify additional punishment because due process guarantees defendants the right to assert their innocence, and defendants cannot be expected to show remorse if they do not admit the crime.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24618518 

The goal was always to get me to plead guilty or be found guilty when I’m not!

My sister also wrote a letter to the judge stating that I may have an undiagnosed mental health issue, hoping this would persuade the judge to apply leniency and a downward departure in sentencing. At that time, my family believed I could receive up to 12 years in prison due to the six felony convictions. In actuality, this was one alleged “crime” charged 6 different ways, which made someone with no prior criminal history, into a multiple offender in a single court case.                                                                     

Remember, it is an affirmative defense if a person charged under 609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS proves that: (1) the person reasonably believed the action taken was necessary to protect the child from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm.

You can’t however, use the affirmative defense if you are deprived of your evidence and if the court prevents certain evidence from being presented at the trial of the case. As I’ve stated before, the overall goal is to break you down and get you to accept any injustice thrown at you. This was done through the use of perjured testimony,  illegal withholding and suppression of evidence to use in support of the affirmative defense, due process violations, witness tampering, abuse of discretion, judicial bias and malicious prosecution.

Anyhow, I completed my court ordered evaluation and unfortunately for those that wanted me to be diagnosed with a mental illness, I passed!

Am I being paranoid that the courts would want me to be diagnosed with a mental illness? I don’t think so . . . If the judge commits someone to treatment, it is typically for a six month period. The case is then reviewed with a hearing to determine whether the commitment should be extended. The exception to this is cases involving Mentally Ill and Dangerous Persons, Sexual Psychopathic Personalities, or Sexually Dangerous Persons. In those cases, there is not an end date to the commitment period; instead, periodic reviews are conducted by the court to determine whether the commitment continues to be necessary. http://www.mncourts.gov/Help-Topics/Civil-Commitments.aspx

The article below shows what happens when you speak out against court corruption.

Twin Cities lawyer suspended over mental health issues

Jill Clark faced discipline for accusing judges, others of misconduct. 
An outspoken and controversial Twin Cities attorney who repeatedly ran for a seat on the state’s high court has been suspended from practicing because of “serious mental health issues.”
According to an order filed Wednesday by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Jill Clark is unable to competently represent clients because of the unspecified mental illness experienced in 2012, which, according to the order, “raised substantial questions regarding Clark’s … ability to competently represent clients.”
The suspension puts a hold on disciplinary proceedings involving Clark. The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR), which is responsible for lawyer discipline, filed a petition against her last February alleging that she falsely accused judges of misconduct and filed paperwork that made it appear a judge signed an order that he actually had denied.
Clark repeatedly tried to move the disciplinary proceedings to federal court, and the matter was eventually heard by District Judge Gerald Seibel, who was appointed as a referee by the state Supreme Court. Clark was hospitalized shortly before a hearing could take place last June, and Seibel recommended that the Supreme Court place her on “disability inactive” status. She appeared before the state Supreme Court in October to argue against that recommendation. Seibel recommended “disability inactive” status for a second time.
OLPR Director Martin Cole said Clark indicated she would again challenge the recommendation, but had not done so before her suspension. It remains in effect until either disability or disciplinary proceedings are completed, Cole said.
The suspension means Clark cannot represent other clients, but can represent herself in further court proceedings. She did not immediately respond to an e-mail or phone message seeking comment Thursday.
In December, Clark filed a federal lawsuit against Hennepin County District Court, the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and more than a dozen other defendants. In a complaint more than 100 pages long, she alleged the OLPR complaint against her stemmed from discrimination, retaliation and several other constitutional violations because she spoke out against judges or planned to run against them in upcoming elections. The case has been transferred to a federal judge in Iowa for further proceedings.
Clark has written about the case on her blog, Jill Clark Speaks, in which she refers to herself as a judicial reformist. She has repeatedly run for Minnesota chief justice and placed third in a primary in August with more than 61,000 votes, or 20 percent of the ballots cast.
Clark, who has practiced law in the state since 1988, is controversial in some legal circles for zealously defending clients and has been accused of obstructing the legal process and causing trouble. She and Jill Waite earned notoriety for several cases, including their successful defense of two Iowa brothers accused of assaulting an off-duty Minneapolis cop and of a former state representative accused of spousal abuse.
Waite was suspended from practicing in 2010 for failing to file tax returns in a timely manner and for other reasons, but Clarke continued practicing. In 2011 she obtained a $60,000 jury verdict against a local blogger, but the award was overturned last year by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Abby Simons • 612-673-4921

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-lawyer-suspended-over-mental-health-issues/187367881/

THE REAL STORY SUMMED UP IN ONE PARAGRAPH

John Remington Graham                               

Jill Clark is one of the most gallant and capable lawyers in Minnesota. I think I can assess the quality of a lawyer, because I have been one 46 years, including service as a public defender, public prosecutor, and law professor. Jill is on “disability” status, because she has asked for judicial reform. That’s the real story in a nutshell. — John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)


  Same song, different verse. . .

(credit:Minnesota Judicial Branch/Michelle MacDonald For Supreme Court)

Attorney Michelle MacDonald also ran for the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2014 endorsed by the Republican Party but lost, getting 46.5 percent of the vote. MacDonald  ran again in 2016 however, Natalie Hudson won re-election. She was chosen by Gov. Dayton to take Justice Alan Page’s spot when he retired.

According to MinnPost, an incumbent hasn’t lost a re-election bid since the 1940s.

Michelle MacDonald also sued a judge on behalf of a client. Going up against a judge and the legal system has made MacDonald a target of the very system she is fighting against every day. Judge David Knutson has continually demonstrated misconduct and went to extreme measures to intimidate MacDonald at the trial of her client in 2013. During a recess on the second day of the trial, MacDonald was placed under arrest for the offense of Contempt of Court due to taking a photo when court was not in session.

In April of 2013, a Rosemount police officer arrested Michelle MacDonald on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest. Denying she’d been drinking, MacDonald refused a field sobriety test unless she was in the presence of a judge. Minnesota Statute 169.91

Michelle was labeled with a “DUI”, which had nothing to do with the forensic facts of what happened. Michelle’s case was a traffic stop, and more accurately an unlawful pullover by Alex Eckstein.  Michelle did not have any alcohol on the night she was stopped without probable cause.

  1. After dialogue with the officer about the reason for the stop, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or perform a field sobriety test.
  2. She asked to see a judge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 169.91 because it was obvious this officer was using questionable measures to fill his quota and was clearly abusing his power and authority. Any citizen can invoke this statute however, as can be seen from this incident, the system does not take kindly to exposing those who are not playing by the rules.
  3. Michelle was held and released from the Rosemount Police Station with NO CHARGES filed against her.
  4. On her own initiative, she went directly to a hospital for a drug and alcohol blood test to put to rest any questions about this incident. The tests came back zero alcohol and zero drugs. 
  5. Michelle filed an employee complaint against the Police Officer who unlawfully pulled her over.
  6. In response, she received a Citation in the mail with five criminal charges against her including charges for driving under the influence.
The Result: Jury convicts Michelle MacDonald of test refusal, resisting arrest

A Dakota County jury convicted Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Michelle MacDonald of refusing to submit to a breath test and obstructing the legal process in connection with an April 2013 traffic stop.

This should have been the headline in ALL media coverage of this insanity!   

MacDonald has stated that in order to demonize and discredit anyone that is exposing corruption, they either portray you as “Crazy, a Criminal or a Conspiracy Theorist.”

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

We also have Mr. Michael Brodkorb who became the main mouthpiece for spreading disinformation when MacDonald ran for Supreme Court. Brodkorb was and has been fixated on MacDonald and our criminal cases, covering them exclusively and not covering any other case or other news story. Brodkorb has lied by ommission and has refused to report facts and details of these cases. (Brodkorb and Judge Asphaug also made sure that the private letter my sister wrote to the judge was made public).                                        

In journalism the term hack writer is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a mercenary or “pen for hire”, expressing their client’s opinions in articles. (I think it’s pretty obvious who Brodkorb’s clients are)!

Comments Brodkorb has made in some of his writings about me:

Evavold connected to Michelle MacDonald

Evavold previously served as Michelle MacDonald’s campaign manager for MacDonald’s campaign for the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2014.

Evavold is not an attorney, but is an activist, who also ran a blog focused on exposing what Evavold and her supporters believe are injustices and corruption in the judicial system


Last but not least, we have the 20/20 hatchet job on this case that originally aired in April 2016 and was rebroadcasted in March 2017. What do they have to gain in pushing this false narrative? Well, six enormous media conglomerates combine to produce about 90 percent of all the media that Americans consume. The mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the establishment and promotes the agenda of the establishment.

The big news networks have developed an almost incestuous relationship with the federal government in recent years.  But of course the same could be said of the relationship that the media has with the big corporations that own stock in their parent companies and that advertise on their networks.
This is one of the reasons why we very rarely ever see any hard hitting stories on the big networks anymore.  The flow of information through the corporate-dominated media is very tightly controlled, and there are a lot of gatekeepers that make sure that the “wrong stories” don’t get put out to the public.  7 THINGS ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW 

Family Courts are “government” and as such are supported by public funding. A multibillion dollar enterprise has been created by the family court divorce, domestic abuse and child abuse industries. Currently, non-profit and for profit advocacy groups nationwide and in the state of MN are obtaining court connected federal funding through Health and Human Services to infulence custody cases.

FEDERAL & STATE GOVERNMENTS DEFRAUDING MILLIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT SCAM ON MASSIVE PROPORTIONS !

Bottom Line

 

Notice of Hearing (See You There!)

download (2)

Dede Evavold

 

Click on documents to zoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: