Montana Judge Faces Call For Impeachment After Incest Sentencing

The sentence handed down in a trial for incest in rural Valley County, Mont., pictured here, has led to a call for the judge in the trial to be impeached.                    Matthew Brown/AP


A state district judge in Montana is facing a call for his impeachment after sentencing a man who admitted to raping his 12-year-old daughter to 60 days in jail, of which he will serve 43.

A petition posted on the website calling for the impeachment of the Valley County, Mont., district court judge, John McKeon, has more than 55,000 signatures. The petition states, “Judge McKeon did not uphold the responsibility of ensuring justice as he is required to in his elected position.”

This is not the first time in Montana that outrage has followed a sentence for raping a child. Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court left intact a 10-year sentence for a man who raped a 14-year-old girl. He had originally been sentenced to just one month in prison by a different state judge.

According to the National Center for State Courts, to impeach a judge in Montana two-thirds of the state Legislature must vote for it, or the state’s judicial standards commission may recommend it to the state Supreme Court.

The current case originally appeared before McKeon in February, when a 40-year-old man from Valley County, Mont., was indicted on three counts of incest for allegedly raping his daughter multiple times, according to court records.

We are not naming the defendant or his family members because doing so could also identify the victim in the case. NPR does not name survivors of sexual assault without their permission.

In July, the defendant and the state reached a plea agreement. The deputy county attorney for Valley County, who was prosecuting the case, agreed to dismiss two of the three charges if the defendant pleaded guilty to committing one count of incest on Nov. 18, 2015.

Plea agreement

The plea agreement recommended a prison sentence of 100 years with 75 years suspended, so the defendant would spend 25 years in prison, as well as the “educational phase and cognitive behavioral phase of a sexual offender treatment program,” $80 in court fees and any future cost of “psychological counseling, therapy and treatment” for the victim.

Those recommendations were in keeping with the minimum punishment under Montana state law, which court documents state as:

“A person convicted of the offense of incest where the victim is 12 years of age or younger and the offender 18 years of age or older at the time of offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 100 years and fined an amount not to exceed $50,000. The court may not suspend execution or defer imposition of the first 25 years of the sentence.”

But although the defendant, his lawyer, Casey Moore, and the state attorney prosecuting the case, Dylan Jensen, all signed the plea agreement, the official sentencing was still up to McKeon. And the judge had some leeway, because under Montana law, there is room for an exception to the minimum sentence for incest.

The sentencing exception

The law states that the defendant can argue for a lesser punishment if a psychosexual evaluation by a “qualified sexual offender evaluator … recommends that treatment of the offender while in a local community affords a better opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender and for the ultimate protection of the victim and society.”

At a sentencing hearing in October, a member of the Montana Sex Offender Treatment Association named Michael Sullivan, who had evaluated the defendant, testified that “the defendant could be safely treated … in the community, that such community treatment was available” in a nearby town and “that the defendant would benefit from such community-based treatment,” according to court documents.

The prosecution did not contest Sullivan’s findings, according to court records.

The victim’s mother wrote in a letter to the court, “I do not feel 25 years in prison is necessarily the best way for the defendant to pay for what he has done.” The letter continued:

“The defendant made a horrible choice. He needs help — not to spend 25 years locked up. He has 2 sons that still love him and need their father in their lives, even with very understandable restrictions. I would like to see my children have an opportunity to heal the relationship with their father. … He is not a monster, just a man that really screwed up and has been paying in many ways since and will continue to have to pay through this justice system and with the loss of family and friends and his own conscience.”

The victim’s maternal grandmother also wrote a letter to the court, part of which appears in McKeon’s sentencing judgment. “What [the defendant] did to my granddaughter was horrible, and he should face consequences,” she wrote, “But his children, especially his sons, will be devastated if their dad is no longer part of their lives.”

Court records say the defendant’s daughter, the victim in the case, did not attend the sentencing hearing. No one testified on her behalf.

43 days in jail

In a judgment filed Oct. 17, McKeon sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison with all 30 years suspended, plus 60 days in county jail. Taking into account the 17 days the defendant had served, the total jail sentence came to 43 days, plus $80 in court fees and future medical costs incurred by his daughter.

The sentence also requires the defendant to register publicly as a sex offender, which state records show he has, and attend a sex-offender treatment program. For the next 30 years, it also restricts his access to the Internet, denies him the right to own a computer or possess pornography of any kind, and prevents him from owning firearms or having contact with anyone under 18 without supervision.

In all, there are more than 40 requirements that, if he violates them, require that the defendant serve the remainder of the sentence in prison.

In his written judgment, McKeon said the “lack of input directly from the victim … or directly from an advocate for the victim” and the “uncontested report and testimony that the defendant would be safely treated … in the community” factored into his decision. He also noted “the defendant is now employed in the community, has established a support group within the community, and has support of a church that he regularly attends.”

McKeon defended his decision to The Associated Press, pointing out that “the defendant’s suspended sentence has numerous restrictions.”

But the petition against McKeon calls the decision “horrible,” stating, “60 days in prison with a suspended 30 year sentence does not match the crime and fails to acknowledge the horrors the victim had to endure.”

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the group organizing the petition, Justice4Montana, said it had been sent via email to Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Steve Daines as well as the chief clerk for the Montana House of Representatives, State Rep. Austin Knudsen and Gov. Steve Bullock, but that none of the six people had confirmed receiving the document.

Denying McKeon his state pension, rather than removing him from the bench, appears to be the ultimate goal of the petition. That is probably because, as the local Havre Daily News reported, McKeon plans to retire in November after 22 years as a judge.

“I’ve tried to do my job studiously, hardworking and timely and confidently throughout this entire tenure,” McKeon told the paper.

“A lot of these cases are emotional cases, cases that carry with them a certain amount of stress,” he said. “There’s something that might weigh with you for some time, until you might make a ruling.”

But, he said, “Once I make a decision, I’ve got to move on. That’s what the appellate courts are for.”

Thus far, no appeal has been filed in the case.


Judge McKeon Issus a statement!

Montana judge retires following rape-sentencing outrage

Child Rapist Gets Stayed Prison Term, 20 Years Probation


Dakota County Judge David L. Knutson let a child rapist, with a lengthy criminal history, walk free after he pleaded guilty to a brutal assault on a child.

Most readers are aware that Judge David Knutson is the judge that reopened Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s marital dissolution/custody case in 2011 and stripped her of her children, property and finances.

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

A complaint filed against Judge David L. Knutson on September 4, 2013, outlines his mishandling of the Grazzini-Rucki case. The complaint also describes how Judge Knutson’s reckless actions contributed to ongoing chaos in the lives of the Rucki children, and deprived Sandra Grazzini-Rucki of her rights. The complaint concludes that Judge Knutson acted with malice, that there is no other reasonable explanation for his conduct.

According to the complaint, “The record on case no. 19AV-FA-11-1273 shows a disturbing pattern where throughout, Judge Knutson has engaged in multiple acts of misconduct and actual bias, has repeatedly violated parties rights, and consistently fails to follow the law…

Judge Knutson has repeatedly denied the mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) any and all contact with her children without any findings of endangerment, abuse or parental unfitness. In addition, throughout this case, Judge Knutson has made absurd statements in an attempt to somehow justify abuses of discretion.“    Continue Reading

The Board of Judicial Standards determined, despite overwhelming evidence, that the complaint “required no further action“. The Board further determined that the allegations did not sway them to take disciplinary action because the merits were not proven with a “clear and convincing standard“.

Retaliatory action was taken however, against Sandra’s attorney Michelle MacDaonald for bringing these claims forward and for suing Judge David Knutson.  Cataclysmic Cover-Up

Reataliatory actions were also taken against me and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in our rigged criminal trials, convictions and sentencing. We were convicted of six felony counts of parental deprivation  (1 count for each of the girls, 2 counts involving David Rucki, and 2 counts involving paternal aunt Tammy Love.) Seriously, that’s not messed up at all!

Guidelines presume a probationary sentence, however, Judge Asphaug (Judge Knutson’s minion), exceeded her authority by sentencing us to two concurrent stayed year-and-a-day prison terms and two consecutive four-year probation terms with no ability to receive an early discharge. See Special Conditions Below:

Our appeals were denied, even though the lower courts departed so far from the accepted and usual course of justice so as to require an exercise of the higher court’s supervisory powers. This simply demonstrates the collusion at all levels of the Minnesota Court System and why remedy and redress is only going to happen outside of the system.

The prevailing message being sent to citizens is that “It’s okay to rape children…It’s not okay to protect them!”


Follow Red Herring Alert:
Facebook  Twitter



Excerpt from Michael Brodwhore’s Missing in Minnesota:

“Lisa Elliott, who serves as the attorney for the Rucki family, filed an emergency motion with the court yesterday which included over 200 pages of exhibits documenting Evavold’s repeated violations of an Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) granted by a court in Dakota County in July 2017.

Late yesterday afternoon, the court granted Elliott’s request for an emergency hearing and scheduled the hearing for February 27, at Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley, Minnesota.”




David Rucki is going to have to get legislation to become a protected class that qualifies for special protection by a law. You know, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

All he has to do to gain an advantage over someone and throw them under the legal bus is make claims of “Ruckiism”. Oh, I guess he already has that advantage!

Next hearing scheduled for February 27th.

Unedited Footage from ABC 20/20 – Reveals How Far ABC Will Go to Suppress Abuse in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Source: Unedited Footage from ABC 20/20 – Reveals How Far ABC Will Go to Suppress Abuse in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Behind the scenes footage from the 2016 taping of ABC’s “Footprints in the Snow” suggests that ABC 20/20 suppressed evidence of abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki case, and slanted the story, in order to portray mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and friend, Dede Evavold, as “vigilante parents” and “family court critics” who participated in a child-kidnapping network operating in a “hidden world”. In pushing this false story, ABC 20/20 covered up domestic abuse, and encouraged viewers to disregard cries for help from children who courageously spoke up to disclose the physical and mental abuse they endured at the hands of a violent father.


The video “ABC’s 20/20 Producer Sean Dooley interviews Dede Evavold for Footprints in the Snow April 2016 Broadcast” shows raw footage of producer Sean Dooley interviewing Dede Evavold.Dede is a friend of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki who became involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case by helping Sandra’s teen daughters S.R. and G.R. find a place to stay after they ran away when the family court failed to protect them from their abusive father, David Rucki. The behind the scenes footage offers Dede’s side of the story, in her own words. Comparing this raw footage to the finished product, it is clear “Footprints” is highly editorialized by ABC 20/20 and its portrayal of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and “supporters” does not accurately reflect their story or experiences.

Dede Evavold (Source: Linked In)

During the interview, ABC producer Sean Dooley admits that he is aware of allegations that runaway sisters, S.R. and G.R., were being abused by their father and if returned to his care they could potentially be abused again. This is a side of the Grazzini-Rucki case never presented in “Footprints”. When asking Dede about the role of the Dahlens (who sheltered the girls on a therapeutic horse ranch), Dooley says, (24:11),”You knew they were safe.. what I guess I’m ..the point I’m trying to get at is you know is this a situation where you felt like what was most important was to ensure that these two teenage girls were in a safe environment and so what you knew about the Dahlens, you felt comfortable saying you knew that they were safe. So that they weren’t going to be with their father, they weren’t going to be put back into a situation where they were potentially at risk of being abused…”

The importance of this remark is that it shows that Dooley clearly understood Dede’s reasons for getting involved after S.R. and G.R. ran away were to protect the children from abuse – yet when “Footprints” aired, ABC 20/20 pushed a completely false narrative and mischaracterized Sandra and “supporters” as radical “activists”.

Sean Dooley wrote a response to journalist Michael Volpe stating ABC stands by their report, and did not suppress information about abuse. Read the response here: ABC Response – Footprints

Sean Dooley (Source: Linked In)

During the interview, Dede repeatedly asks Dooley to “dig deeper” and investigate how the failures of the court to keep the Rucki children safe from abuse caused teen sisters S.R. and G.R. to run away in April 2013.

Dede says, “There shouldn’t have to be a time where children have to runaway because they are fearful. If the system was in place, and it was set up on how it’s supposed to function, they (S.R. and G.R.) would have never had to run. And you hear a lot that the family courts are broken.. they are not broken, they are well designed, there’s a well-designed operation..the court system really functions on conflict for profit.”

Dede remains calm throughout the interview, stating everything she has done was to protect S.R. and G.R. from being further harmed. While the sisters remained in hiding, Dede says, she worked to find a solution to keep the girls safe, and return them home. Dede said several times during the interview that she was not fearful. – It is obvious that Dede placed concern for S.R. and G.R. above her own situation, even when she was facing jail for efforts to protect them. Dede said she was hopeful that when “Footprints” aired that the allegations of abuse would be revealed and that someone, finally, would help the Rucki children.


Just the opposite happened – Dooley and ABC 20/20 not only suppressed information about abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki case but sympathized with Rucki, who is portrayed in “Footprints” as a victim of an “epic divorce”. Rucki’s lengthy criminal record, and propensity towards violence is also suppressed.

Elizabeth Vargas, former journalist and anchor, ABC 20/20

Although Dooley was informed of, and provided with evidence, of abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki case, ” the Rucki children were labeled as “brainwashed” and victims of “parental alienation”. ABC 20/20 encouraged viewers not to listen to, or believe, the children’s allegations of abuse or cries for help.

Both S.R. and G.R. have been very vocal in stating they are not “brainwashed” and were not coached by their mother, and that the abuse did, in fact, happen.

As noted in social service records from November 2015, recorded after the sisters were discovered living on the Dahlen’s ranch, S.R. says,”They were told by so many people that they were brainwashed and needed to be de-programmed. She never felt they were brainwashed.”

As for G.R., the social worker says, “Her dad would stalk the house when they were with mom. He showed anger like ‘I’m gonna kill you’. She got no hugs growing up. One time after a hockey game her dad rubbed her inner thigh. Dad shoved her mom often…She still feels fear of her dad, she does not know what he is like today… She does not feel her mother played a role in her thoughts or feelings about her dad.

It should be noted that this Dakota County social worker believed that S.R. and G.R. were victims of abuse, and needed to be protected from Rucki. The social worker advocated in court for the girls during the November 2015 hearing, advising they be placed in foster care and that Rucki only be allowed supervised visits. (Nov 2015) Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns/

S.R. and G.R. were also appointed a lawyer, who fought to keep the girls in foster care for safety reasons. ABC 20/20 failed to mention any of this in “Footprints”.

Juvenile Court judge, Michael Mayer, disagreed and placed S.R. and G.R. back into the custody of Rucki. S.R. and G.R. were escorted from the courtroom by a guard who transported them to California to participate in a reunification therapy program. 20/20 portrays the program as successful, citing the girls didn’t run away. However, social service records note that the girls promised the social worker they would not run if sent to California. – It wasn’t the program that prevented S.R. and G.R. from attempting to run away, it was a promise made to a social worker, the only person in the system that believed them and tried to help. EPC Hearing Transcript Nov 30, 2015

At the time S.R. and G.R. were placed back into his custody, Rucki was on probation for a road rage incident where he followed a motorist, and ambushed him in a parking lot, beating the victim until he was bloodied and bruised. ABC 20/20 fails to mention this in “Footprints”; even as this behavior shows Rucki’s propensity towards violence.druckipolicereports

Despite overwhelming evidence of his abuse, reporter Elizabeth Vargas remains a strong supporter of David Rucki. During “Footprints”, Vargas says it is quote “total vindication” that Dakota County family court judge, David L. Knutson, denied any abuse had occurred then awarded sole custody to Rucki. At the time of the 2012 custody order, Rucki was on probation for a violation of a protective order against Sandra. Vargas goes on to say that “David works to mend his fractured relationship with them..” ignoring  records that reveal all five of the Rucki children had disclosed that Rucki had physically and mentally abused them, and had threatened their lives. The response of the family court was NOT to protect the children, but, instead order them into “deprogramming” and “reunification therapy” to force them to recant abuse allegations, and accept a relationship with Rucki. Court records document the visible fear the children felt towards their father, including one of the children becoming physically ill and having to leave the room after being forced into a session with Rucki.


S.R. and G.R. have consistently stated they ran away for one reason, and one reason only – and that is because they were being abused by their father, and feared for their lives because the court was working to place them into his custody. The system, at every level, failed to protect them.


Consider this note from the social worker who interviewed S.R. in November 2015, “The police told them not to call unless someone was being killed…


When ABC, a major news organization, sympathizes with a violent abuser, and uses its broadcast as a smear campaign against the victims it sends a dangerous message … Does someone really need to be killed before the cries for help from an abused child are taken seriously?

Source: More Unedited 20/20 Footage

More Unedited 20/20 Footage

Published on Jan 4, 2018

Sean Dooley ABC News Producer


ABC’s 20/20 Producer Sean Dooley interviews Dede Evavold for Footprints in the Snow April 2016 Broadcast



But She Looks So Sweet

Fallout from 20/20’s Fake Broadcast “Footprints in the Snow”

But She Looks So Sweet

20/20‘s Elizabeth Vargas On Fake News, Barbara Walters, & Being A Woman On The Air
All the fake news that proliferates on social media must drive you nuts.
“It absolutely does. I mean, there’s fake news about me. There’s a lot of inaccuracies out there. As a journalist, it’s incumbent on us to really do our homework, and to really talk to all sides of the story, and explore every single angle, and get the backup that we need. There’s a lot — I don’t want to use the word fake news — but there’s a lot of false information out there in the zeitgeist, online. It’s really incumbent on those of us who pride ourselves on getting the facts right to do the work to do that. To read. To get lots of different points of views, not just one point of view.”

Yes Elizabeth, you are the expert on fake news and false information!

From: Lion News []
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 7:46 AM
To:;;;;; Beth Mullen <>;
Subject: ABC 20/20’s Elizabeth “The Drunk” Vargas forced to leave because of incriminating Sandra Grazzini-Rucki jail audio?

David Donovan, President and Executive Director New York State Broadcasters Association 518-456-8888:

You don’t think that ABC 20/20’s Elizabeth “The Drunk” Vargas forced to leave her job because of the incriminating Sandra Grazzini-Rucki jail audio, do you? Inquiring minds want to know, don’t they? By the way, why didn’t you respond to my previous revelations about “The Drunk” Vargas, huh? Oh, just so you know, the incriminating audio of the 2nd jail interview with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and “The Drunk” Vargas are found at the link below, aren’t they?

Terry Dean, Nemmers (320) 283-5713

I am sorry only to have to share this news with you as we celebrate the holidays. I had hoped to make this announcement after the first of the year. Elizabeth Vargas To Exit ABC News In May by Patrick Hipes December 22, 2017 10:56am

Lion News: Unedited ABC 20/20 Elizabeth Vargas 2nd Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Ramsey Jail Interview?

Lion News: Lakeville Police Chief Long & Deputy Kornmann Harass & Hang Up On Dede?
Lion News:  Dede Evavold Exposes Corrupt Ramsey Co. Sheriff Bostrum’s Prisoner Abuse?
Lion News: Ramsey Co. Sheriff Bostrum Harasses Prisoners Dede Evavold & Sandra Grazzini-Rucki?
Lion News: Dede Evavold Reports Corrupt Dakota Co. Attorney Backstrom To Rude FBI?
Lion News: KSTP-TV’s Altmann Justice-Hating Jerk On Trial-By-Ambush For Dede Evavold? Lion News: Dede Reports Corrupt Dakota Co. Attorney Backstrom’s Trial-By-Ambush To FBI?
Lion News: Lakeville Detective Dronen Caught Planting Evidence In Missing Rucki Girl’s Case?
Lion News: Star Tribune Hack Michael Brodkorb Caught Interfering With Missing Rucki Girl’s Probe?
Lion News: Exclusive Video Of Samantha Rucki Testifying Her Testimony Is Not Of Her Free Will?
Lion News: Exclusive Video Of Samantha Rucki Calling Dakota County Judge Knutson A “Dick”?
Lion News:  Dede Throws Monkey Wrench Into High-Profile Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case?
Lion News: Audio Proves Corrupt Lakeville Police Illegally Withholding Evidence From Dede?

From: Dede Evavold []
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:39 PM
To: ‘Dooley, Sean’ <>
Subject: Grant Funding

Hi Sean,

Below is an article from regarding federal grant funding in the courts.
Call me if you have any questions.

Dede Evavold 

Top 5 HHS Programs Endangering Women and Children

05/14/2012 12:21 pm ET | Updated Jul 14, 2012
Anne Stevenson Journalist, Writer, Policy Analyst

The so-called “War on Women” is raging, and billions of your tax dollars are being misused to fuel it via the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The solution is to remove the middle class from the welfare roles and do away with gender-based funding incentives.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program it created transformed welfare policy by drastically reducing and shifting federal assistance away from the homes of mothers and children and into the homes of violent offenders. In an articleentitled “How Federal Welfare Funding Drives Judicial Discretion in Child-Custody Determinations and Domestic Relations Matters” fathers and rights activists Lary Holland and Jason Bottomsly explain that this policy has backfired because the incentives are structured so that the state will only benefit if children are removed from loving homes:

Continue Reading:

20-20 Transcripts from original broadcast of “Footprints in the Snow”
The real story of the corrupt court system, federal funding, and the destruction of protective parents just didn’t seem to fit their narrative, so instead they engaged in deceptive editing to create their own story.
What you must always remember is that the courts are now an industry of corruption trafficking children for profit. It’s all about funding an out of control and bogus industry which cannot sustain itself through legitimate cases alone so has to create its own constant supply of fraudulent cases instead.
Quotes about being mom to the best 3 kids in the world on ...

Michael Cindy Bradykorb Can’t Read Court Documents

Missing in Minnesota

Missing in Minnesota

UPDATE: Dede Evavold loses appeal of her criminal conviction

The Clerk of Appellate Courts has rejected Dede Evavold’s petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court because Evavold’s petition was not properly filed.


MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Appeal 2017

Reply Brief Evavold

Commentary: Rucki Hires High Buck Attorneys in Lawsuit To Say He is Not Dangerous or Abusive


Commentary on David Rucki Lawsuit Asks WHY is Rucki targeting an innocent church, it’s pastor and wife… while ignoring a woman who was directly involved in hiding his daughters: Michael Volpe Reveals: Rucki Hires High Buck Attorneys in Lawsuit To Say He is Not Dangerous or Abusive

Michael Volpe reveals another twist to the Grazzini-Rucki case in his latest article: David Rucki Claims Pastor and It’s Church Helped Hide His Daughters

David Rucki filed a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against several people and entities including a church and it’s pastor, and even the pastor’s wife, (as the lawsuit states) for making false claims that he is dangerous, when he is not, and encouraging his daughters to “leave their home”.

Rucki may spend nearly that amount on attorney’s fees alone – high buck Marshall Tanick and Lisa Elliott have been retained to represent Rucki in this lawsuit; the estimated costs of their services exceeds $1,000 per hour. It has not been explained how Rucki can afford legal representation from two attorneys, considering he claims that he is impoverished and is receives welfare.

From Volpe,“Even more shockingly, Rucki continues to qualify for public assistance while being able to hire two attorneys simultaneously.

David Rucki, who received 100% of the marital assets including four homes, nine cars, and a multi-million-dollar business along with sole custody of their five children, still qualified for public assistance through this very program.

‘The Father receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to the Title IV D of the Social Security Act,” said Judge Maria Pastoor in 2016, using this assistance as justification for ordering Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month in child support…’”

Volpe’s investigation of the case has revealed that,”..there is overwhelming evidence that almost anyone is in danger being in David Rucki’s presence.. And includes details of Rucki’s long history of violent, and criminal behavior, including,”Ten different people- his ex-wife, five children, two neighbors, in-law, and mailman- all previously successfully took out a restraining order against him.. If this lawsuit goes forward, more information concerning Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and the abuse of his family, are expected to emerge.

Rucki claims the defendants, which include, Dede Evavold and ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, compelled then teenage daughters S.R. and G.R. to “leave their home” and stay on a ranch for abused children by using “false statements” and “false threats” that their father, Rucki, is violent and would hurt them.

According to Volpe,“Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home from the care of their paternal aunt and to go with Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud Sauk Center and White Horse Ranch based on false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.” The lawsuit further states.

The lawsuit does not explain why this random church, its pastor and wife would go along with this scheme if indeed the girls were being manipulated into staying there by false threats…”

Both S.R. and G.R. stated the reason they ran away because the family court failed to keep them safe from their abusive father, Rucki, and they felt endangered in the current custody arrangement. Statements made by S.R. and G.R. have been consistent, and have not changed, until Rucki sent them out of state, under the watch of a guard, for “reunification therapy”. S.R. later admitted during a police interview that Rucki “pressured” and “guilted” her into recanting abuse allegations.

The lawsuit filed by Rucki states the defendants failed to notify authorities that S.R. and G.R. were staying on the ranch in violation of a court order.  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and co-defendants Dede Evavold as well as Doug and Gina Dahlen have all been charged with felony deprivation of parental rights, and convicted, for their role in assisting the girls.

The church, and it’s pastor, named in this lawsuit have never been implicated nor charged in connection with the disappearance of S.R. and G.R., who ran away in April 2013 and stayed on the Dahlen’s ranch until November 2015.

Another woman who assisted the runaway Rucki teens, Lori Musolf, has avoided criminal charges entirely. Musolf had extensive conversations with the runaway Rucki sisters in the days after their disappearance. Musolf also arranged the interview, and acted as a go between, for the Rucki sisters to appear on Fox 9 with Trish van Pilsum. She also failed to notify authorities. Will Rucki name Musolf in the lawsuit and seek damages against her???

Stay tuned for developments…

Read More:

Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story

Multiple Witness Reports: Rucki Sisters Fearful of Father, Felt Safe at Ranch

Why Hasn’t Lori Musolf Been Charged for her Role in Assisting Runaway Rucki Sisters?