Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Police Report, HRO: David Rucki is Dangerous, Not Safe Around Childre

inflamedrucki

In 2011, Judge David L. Knutson ordered the five Rucki children into reunification therapy and supervised visits with father, David Rucki, while two separate harassment orders were in place against him (one harassment order filed by Sandra, the other filed by a neighbor).

The danger Rucki poses to children is noted in a police report filed against Rucki prior to obtaining the HRO which states,”he and his wife run a daycare at their home and are very concerned for the children they care for (due to Rucki’s threats and aggressive behavior).

Along with the HRO, Rucki has a long history of violent behavior that manifests in both his criminal record, and in the abuse allegations raised by ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children. druckipolicereports (See page 11-21 for information related to this article) Court documents also indicate that Rucki was ordered in anger management classes on 3 separate occasions, and during the divorce was ordered into domestic abuse counseling.

Despite overwhelming evidence, Judge David L. Knutson refused to acknowledge the abuse, and has put the lives of the Rucki children at risk by first by court-ordering the “de-programming” the children to recant abuse allegations and then by giving sole custody to Rucki – after proven to be dangerous, emotionally unstable, and not safe around children.

NOTE: This article contains some of the defense evidence suppressed by Judge Karen Asphaug during the rigged trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

screaming

The harassment order was filed by a neighbor R.M. (issued on September 15, 2009) and barred Rucki from having any contact with his wife R.R.M., their two children and even the children enrolled in the daycare they operated. HRO Filed Against Rucki 2009

According to the HRO David Rucki terrorized the family in the following ways:

Made Threats:He said he would unleash holy hell if we ever turned him in again”. “He also did a threat later in the street. He’s mad we called animal control over his dogs.”

Exhibited Frightening Behavior: Loud, Cursing, Coming in Close proximity to their house and mailbox.

Called the Victim(s) Abusive Names: Called my wife a “bitch” and my son a “son of a bitch” and called us “assholes”. Cursing at us while daycare kids present.

While the HRO was in place, Rucki violated the order numerous times. The neighbors were so frightened that they placed security cameras around their home.

The HRO remained in place for 2 years – the reason the neighbors did not renew the HRO was because Sandra had a protective order in place that prohibited David from coming near the cul-de-sac, where the neighbors also lived, so they felt that restraining order would also protect their family. This proved to be false – Rucki has stalked Sandra, and violated protective orders she filed against him. Sandra’s protective order was later dismissed by Judge David L. Knutson.

Judge David L Knutson

Judge David L Knutson

*** IMPORTANT UPDATE ***

Journalist Michael Volpe, covering the Grazzini-Rucki case, just released a police report filed by R.M on September 8, 2009 . The police report documents the terrifying incident that led up to the HRO: David Rucki thinks “asshole” is an appropriate term for a three year old.

The police report demonstrates abusive behavior, and an abusive mentality through Rucki’s own words and actions. A pattern also emerges from the police report that corroborates abuse allegations raised by Sandra.

Domestic violence is defined by a pattern of abusive behavior that is used to gain power and control over another person through threat, force, violence or intimidation. Domestic Violence – US DOJ

What is particularly dangerous about Rucki is that he attempts to exert power and control over anyone close to him -beyond his family. Rucki literally prowls the neighborhood, and by extension Lakeville, as his own territory much like an alpha wolf.

davidraging2

A Few Examples of David Rucki’s Pattern of Abuse:

The police report describes Rucki threatening and swearing at the neighbor’s children and also swearing at the children in the daycare.

Rucki threatened and swore at the neighbor’s wife, R.R.M.; including incidents where children were present. Rucki is so brazen that he referred to R.R.M. as a “bitch” while police were present!

The threats and profanity are the same as what Rucki has said to Sandra, and his own children. The viciousness of Rucki’s words were captured in a series of voice mail messages left for his teenage son (Comments taken from picture above. Also read transcripts recorded voice mail messages)

Rucki refers to R.R.M. as a “crazy lady“. Rucki also accuses ex-wife Sandra as “crazy”. Sandra has never been diagnosed with mental illness. Rucki continues to avoid questions about his own mental health, and the results of his psych evals.

Rucki admits in the police report that he called Child Protective Services on the neighborsdue to safety concerns for the children“. Reading the police report it is obvious the only safety concern that exists is David Rucki. It is clear Rucki made a false report to CPS because he was angry at the neighbors, and was carrying out on threats he made against them.

Rucki made false reports against Sandra to the family court professionals and during the criminal trial, claiming she is a danger to the children. There have never been any findings of abuse against Sandra. Just the opposite – when court proceedings began, the Rucki children  expressed they shared a loving relationship with their mother and wanted to live with her. It is only through forcible separation, and under the threat of de-programming that has Sandra become estranged from her children.The allegations Rucki raised against Sandra are not motivated by genuine concern but rather, are a form of abuse.

Another example – while the police officer was interviewing R.M. (quote),”he informed me that suspect (Rucki) drove by as we were speaking and put up the middle finger of his left hand at him…” Rucki later admits to police that he did make a gesture but says, “I only waved at them, they can see it however they want.

A similar gesture made by Rucki with his middle finger was captured in a still photo taken on July 27, 2013, in a stalking incident: What’s Fair is Fair

Finally, when the police interview Rucki he is angry and refusing to cooperate. The officer informs Rucki that they will have to charge him with disorderly conduct, Rucki replies, “Go ahead it’s their word against mine and you can’t prove anything.” Rucki approached police two additional times stating “that we couldn’t take their word over his“. Rucki attempts to intimidate police to get them to drop charges against him.

In another section, Rucki basically says the laws do not apply to him. He attempts to intimidate another police officer into dropping a complaint against him.

This is similar behavior as what was reported by S.R. (one of the teens who ran away due to Rucki’s abuse) – that she was pressured and guilted into recanting abuse allegations by Rucki: Pressured, Threatened S. Rucki Bravely Speaks Out Against “Horrendous” Family Court

You can’t prove anything” could also explain what has happened to Sandra throughout all of the legal proceedings from 2011 to the present – Dakota County, has taken the word of David Rucki as fact and completely violated the law, and dismissed significant evidence and documentation in doing so.

Why does Dakota County protect David Rucki?

Originally Posted: Rucki Police Report, HRO

***************

For More Information:

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

Michael Volpe’s articles on the #grazzinirucki case can be found Communities Digital News: Grazzini-Rucki Articles on CDN

 

 

Advertisements

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

Image may contain: 9 people, people smiling, text
The Women’s Coalition

Watch 20/20 Tomorrow! Features Protective Mom Sandra’s Case
Women’s Coalition Communications Director Damon Dumas Interviewed
Dear MSM Videos Will Be Aired; SHARE Post

UPDATE: Boycott ABC for Biased Reporting!
https://www.facebook.com/1459888504285471/photos/a.1464723457135309.1073741828.1459888504285471/1722307808043538

20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas flew to Santa Monica to interview Damon Dumas. Damon was expecting to speak as The Women’s Coalition Communications Director, and as such would be letting the public know about how Sandra’s case is just one of millions around the world in which children are being taken away from women and given to fathers, most of whom are abusive. However, Damon was just asked about his own case and attempted to fit in the larger picture.

The decision was made that it would be best coming from Damon since he is harder to discredit and there had been reports that Vargas had made Sandra look like a liar/alienator in her prison interview. However, after The Women’s Coalition Director Cindy Dumas made the producer, Sean Dooley, aware of that and refused to do an interview because of it, he promised to look at all of Sandra’s documents to help confirm that she is not a liar, which he did.

Cindy did interview at length over the phone, provided them with facts and research and, most importantly, the Dear MSM videos showing this is a women’s civil rights crisis. Parts of the videos will be aired, however it is not known which ones. Thanks to all who participated and for those who did not, you can still send a 2 to 3 minute video to help the cause and for other journalists to see. See instructions on the Dear MSM page: https://www.facebook.com/events/185452588478205/

The producer appears to want to genuinely portray the protective mothers’ side of the story. We shall see…. He was asked to give The Women’s Coalition acknowledgement for Damon’s interview and for the videos so the public would become aware of our organization. If you think he does a good job on this segment, you can thank him at: sean.dooley@abc.com. The Women’s Coalition will post the segment as soon as it is archived.

20/20 PROMO:
Timeline: How Parents’ Bitter Divorce and Custody Battle Led to the Disappearance of Two Sisters
http://abcnews.go.com/…/timeline-parents-bitter-divo…/story…

Living in Lakeville, Minnesota, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki appeared to be doting and loving parents to their five children, Nico, Samantha, Gianna, Nia and Gino.

But despite the happy moments their home videos captured, Sandra said she suffered years of emotional and physical abuse at David’s hand. She also claims he abused the children.

“We’d lock ourselves in the bedroom because we’re scared. We just didn’t know how his behavior was going to be from one day to the next,” Sandra, 50, told ABC News’ “20/20.”

By 2011, Sandra said she had enough and filed for divorce. But what ensued was a bitter he-said, she-said dispute with their five children at the center.

Two years later, a court-appointed psychologist determined that Sandra had been engaging in parental alienation, manipulating her children into fearing their father. Custody of the five children was temporarily transferred from Sandra to a relative. However, the two oldest daughters, Samantha, now 17, and Gianna, now 16, who were often vocal about their claim that their father was abusive, ran away and disappeared. The sisters were eventually found in 2015.

Today, Sandra is awaiting trial for felony charges of deprivation of parental rights, while David is attempting to move forward with his children. Sandra remains steadfast that she has only ever wanted to protect her children, and David denies he was ever abusive to Sandra and their kids.

See a timeline of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki’s dispute below:

From the Promo:
Timeline: How Parents’ Bitter Divorce and Custody Battle Led to the Disappearance of Two Sisters
http://abcnews.go.com/…/timeline-parents-bitter-divo…/story…

[Pictured: Damon Dumas (previously Moelter) at the interview (top right); Sandra Rucki (bottom right)]

Image may contain: 9 people, people smiling, text

—–Original Message—–
From: Rachel Alintoff <rbatyas@aol.com>
To: channing.dungey <channing.dungey@abc.com>
Cc: thewomenscoalitionpac <thewomenscoalitionpac@gmail.com>; patrice <patrice@nurturedparent.org>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 8:17 am
Subject: Boycotting ABC

Dear President Dungey,

I am with The Women’s Coalition and am writing to let you know that we will be boycotting ABC until you retract Friday night’s episode “Footprints in the Snow”, issue an apology to Sandra Rucki, Cindy Dumas and women around the world who have been implicated.

As a domestic violence survivor myself and a protective mother of an autistic 6 year old who was illegally ripped from me by a corrupt judge in NJ, I found your segment to be disturbingly bias against women and dangerous to the public’s perception of the reality of what is really happened.   The fact that 20/20 decided to purposely omit evidence showing abuse that was provided to you and the reporters was deliberate manipulation of the truth.

The Women’s Coalition has been documenting this crisis on social media and Youtube and with the UN and Women’s Commissions.  We have a huge following and a strong social media presence.

We hope you correct this episode and do a follow-up showing the additional evidence of abuse.  As it stands right now, you have turned women, mothers and children off to your show by your gross misrepresentation and we have instructed all of our supporters to never to grant an exclusive or any type of interview to ABC and especially not to 20/20

I personally have an exclusive story coming out on one of the big networks in the next few weeks.  I will make sure that when my story becomes of further public interest that I will not speak to any reporters from ABC news.  You have lost the trust of abused mothers and children everywhere.

It is a travesty to harm women and children the way your show did.   You should be greatly ashamed.

Thank you for your time,

Rachel Alintoff
917-673-8452


The short clip below is footage of 20/20 producers Beth Mullen and Sean Dooley reviewing documents and watching video of the Civil Rights Case Against Judge David Knutson at Attorney Michelle MacDonald’s office.

Lea Dannewitz discusses the judges court order to remove her blog Carver County Corruption from the internet. She did not remove it in 2014, but did in 2016. Facing potential civil litigation in Rucki case, owner deletes blog

What’s interesting is that any Carver County Corruption links that are still out there go directly to Michael Brodkorb’s Missing in Minnesota fake news blog.  Check it out → 3/14/2013 post from the blog Carver County Corruption

I received a similar letter in an attempt to intimidate me into deleting this blog and to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra Grazzini-Ruckci’s trial. I currently have numerous charges against me for exercising my first amendment right to free speech on this blog. Criminalizing noncriminal behavior while ignoring true crirme is the modus operandi in Dakota County.

Watch video in its entirety below

 

RELATED

PROTECT A CHILD – GO TO JAIL

But She Looks So Sweet

20/20 Denial of Substantiating Documents in the Grazzini-Rucki Case

Beaten Before Born: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Assaulted While Pregnant – Rucki Wanted to Kill Baby Because He “Wasn’t Perfect”

David Rucki is so violent, and so abusive that he beat ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki while pregnant, and assaulted his unborn before the child even took his first breath. As a result of the beating, the child was born prematurely (and suffers with permanent health problems).

This, according to, statements Sandra Grazzini-Rucki made during a heart-wrenching episode of Fighting B.A.C.K. (Aired: 6/19/2017) During the episode, Sandra also reveals that Rucki threatened to harm her children as a way to gain control over her through fear and intimidation.

 

The shocking revelation came when Sandra responded to a guest who was describing her own situation with domestic violence, and how her child was affected. The guest says her abusive ex used her child as a weapon, and would even retaliate by hurting the child, as a way to intimidate and control her. Sandra said that hearing the guest’s story reminded her of the violent marriage she escaped from.

The National Institutes of Health reports that over 300,000 pregnant women in the U.S. are victims to domestic violence, with domestic violence being the leading cause of death among U.S. women of childbearing age.

(Note: This article contains additional information on these incidents, as provided by a confidential source – which are told in the first person voice to illustrate Sandra’s horrifying experience, and told in this way raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence experienced during pregnancy)

Rucki’s Assault on an Unborn Baby: “I was kicked repeatedly in the stomach (because) he was ‘not a perfect child’…”

Imagine the horror Sandra surely experienced and felt:

Lying on a gurney, hands desperately clutch swollen belly, trying to hold back contractions… as she fades in and out of consciousness, she pleads,”No, no, it’s too soon…”

How would she explain the bruises this time? The violent assault against her unborn left her belly black and blue, bleeding on the inside… she realized too late that she married a demon in the flesh. Raging he stood over her kicking again and again… spit flying from his mouth as he screamed and swore..

Loud voice, someone shouting her name… she screamed and threw her arms out… The beep-beep of a fetal monitor going wild… She struggled to open her eyes, not comprehending, plastic IV tubing twisting as she fought… frightened by the sound of her name being called. Was she safe?

Signs of life.. a faint and erratic heart beat … tiny, seashell shaped knees raised to chest then violently kick out… Even the hospital could not protect her once he realized the baby he tried to kill was now fighting back.

(28:21) Sandra says: “When my youngest child was born, he (David Rucki) was under the belief that this was not going to be a ‘perfect child’ when I was kicked repeatedly into the stomach and went into pre-term labor, and gave birth, and he (Rucki) said, I want him gone rather than have a kid that’s not perfect because it’s more about me than it is about him…”

The child has been permanently affected by the assault inflicted on him while in the womb, and will suffer with lifelong health issues.

Rucki Threatens to Chop Baby Up in a Ceiling Fan

All she wanted was to be a wife and mother, to have a home filled with laughter and children. Instead the children tip-toed through the rooms like ghosts – vainly trying to remain silent and unseen, as if they could avoid their father’s rage.

The children… where were the children? So much they should not see… the violence, the tears… the fake apologies… Hiding somewhere in the house. Hands slammed over their small ears. Tears filling their eyes. They feared not the mythical monster in the closet that most children imagine but the very real monster in the house, their father.

(28:06) Sandra says: “When my oldest child was 3 months old, my ex-husband David Rucki grabbed him from the bassinet, held him up to a ceiling fan and said, ‘You will do as I say or he is going into the fan…’”

(29:03) Sandra says: “Sometimes when you talk about things it reminds me of things that David Rucki did and yet these are the men that have our children… You talk about this and I know, I will never forget when David held the baby up to the ceiling fan and said ‘You do what I say or he’s (chokes on words) .. they have no concern for the child, it’s more of a control issue…”

Rucki Promised to Change But Then Threatened to Kill Sandra, and the Children

Runaway Rucki Teen, G.R. also stated,…He showed anger like, ‘I’m going to kill you…’ “ (Social Service Report, November 2015:  Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns

Sandra says during the marriage, Rucki repeatedly promised to change but always resorted back to his abusive behavior. Sandra says Rucki even threatened to kill “your children” if she did not comply with his demands.

Sandra says physical, mental and sexual abuse existed in the generations of the Rucki family and influenced David Rucki’s abusive behavior and attitude towards his own children. David Rucki promised Sandra that he would not abuse his own children the way he was abused by his father, and the way he witnessed his father abuse his sisters. Cut from the same fabric, David Rucki, in the end, turned out to be just as abusive, and dangerous to his own children as Fred Rucki was to him, and his sisters.

Family Court: The Two Options That Trap Victims of Domestic Violence

I think that is so sad that as a parent in an abusive relationship, why is it that your two options are: stay, being abused, have your child grow up in this environment filled with insecurities, tension and violence or leave and risk losing your child and continuing to suffer… – Comment from “Fighting Back” Guest, a Mother also involved in family court who lost custody of her baby to an alleged abuser

Sandra says that her children went to everyone asking for help and that every level of the system has failed to protect them.

Instead of protecting children, family court Judge David L Knutson, Dakota County, has assisted David Rucki in every step through the legal process to continue to abuse, torment and attempt to kill Sandra by making it impossible to survive. Judge Knutson has also endangered the lives of all 5 Rucki children by placing them under the care, custody and ultimately the control of David Rucki. Even as adults the Rucki children have been unable to escape their father and live independent lives of their own due to his violence against them.

For More Info on Grazzini-Rucki Case: Dakota County Corrupt Courthouse Event: Tour Infamous Court at Center of the Grazzini-Rucki Case

Originally Posted: Beaten Before Born

David Rucki Lawsuit: Seeking $50k in Damages, Claims He is Not Abusive

AN UPDATE ON THE GRAZZINI-RUCKI CASE FROM MICHAEL VOLPE (PPJ GAZETTE):

David Rucki Claims Pastor and It’s Church Helped Hide His Daughters

(November 19th 2017, Dakota County, Minnesota. Author: Michael Volpe.)

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

“As I have documented meticulously, both the family court and the criminal court have manipulated evidence to unconstitutionally block the introduction of any evidence which would support abuse on David Rucki’s part.”

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

David Rucki now claims that a church and its pastor are also responsible for keeping him from his daughters, and he wants them to pay.

In a new lawsuit filed by Rucki, he sues several people and entities, including Destiny Church, along with the pastor, Steve Quernomoen and Quernomoen’s wife, Trish.

During the time they were at White Horse Ranch, Samantha and Gianna were taken by the Dahlen’s or otherwise went to Defendant Destiny Church in Ashby, Minnesota. The Pastor of Destiny Church, Defendant Steve Quernomoen and his wife, Trish Quernomoen, became aware that Samantha and Gianna were being hidden from Plaintiff David Rucki in violation of a court order and failed to inform the authorities of their presence.” The lawsuit states.

White Horse Ranch is a ranch for abused children, and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s two oldest daughters, Samantha and Gianna, stayed at this ranch from April 19, 2013, to November 18, 2015; the Dahlen’s who own the ranch, Dede Evavold who recommended the girls stay there and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki were all convicted for their roles in keeping the girls there during this period.

David Rucki was granted sole custody of all his children during this period.

According to the lawsuit, the girls were kept there because they were frightened into believing that David Rucki was violent when he wasn’t.

“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.

The Dahlen’s, the White Horse Ranch, Evavold, and Grazzini-Rucki are all co-defendants in the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the two attorneys who filed this lawsuit, Marshall Tanick and Lisa Elliot, refused to respond to numerous emails and voicemails for comment when confronted with overwhelming evidence that the narrative the lawsuit built was bogus.

Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that almost anyone is in danger being in David Rucki’s presence.

David Rucki was convicted of disorderly conduct in 1994 and in 2014, one incident stemming from a barfight and the other incident a road rage incident in which Rucki blooded a man in a parking lot and went shopping.

Ten different people- his ex-wife, five children, two neighbors, in-law, and mailman- all previously successfully took out a restraining order against him.

According to two police reports, in one a witness saw him ripping pictures off their wall before threatening to kill Sandra Grazzini-Rucki shortly after the divorce started, while another was in a bar when Rucki told a third party he would hire the Hell’s Angels to rough up his ex-wife.

His son Nico told Child Protective Services (CPS) that when he was eight his dad stuck a gun to his head. In a police report, he ran after his daughter on her thirteenth birthday, when she barricaded herself in her house he banged on the door uncontrollably before police finally removed him from the scene.

terror-2662817_1920

As I have documented meticulously, both the family court and the criminal court have manipulated evidence to unconstitutionally block the introduction of any evidence which would support abuse on David Rucki’s part.

In the custody trial, Judge David Knutson, ordered a motion in limine barring any evidence of abuse in the middle of the custody trial; he awarded sole custody to David Rucki following this trial where Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney was also forced to conduct part of it handcuffed to a wheelchair without: pen, paper, computer, or client.

Judge Karen Asphaug, actually ordered Sandra Grazzini-Rucki not to say more than a dozen words while Grazzini-Rucki testified, these words included: protective order, abuse, sexual abuse, assault, threats, etc.

Both the family court and criminal court have been buoyed by a network of appeals courts which do judicial gymnastics to validate blatantly illegal rulings.

For instance, after Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was thrown out on the street, not allowed to see her children, forced to leave the state, and not allowed to talk to anyone she had previously spoken to on September 7, 2012, Minnesota Appeals Court Judge Jill Flaskamps-Halbrooks passed on overturning the ruling, arguing that the order was a temporary one.

The same judge upheld a child support order which ordered Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay David Rucki almost $1,000 in monthly child support even though she had no job and he was a multi-millionaire; the judge justified it by saying that accumulated wealth played no role in determining child support and the judge had unlimited discretion to impute income.

The Minnesota Supreme Court Judge Lorie Gildea has voted against Grazzini-Rucki every time Gildea has heard her appeal, more than fifteen occasions.

It seems obvious that Elliott and Tanick believe the Minnesota civil court is equally corrupt.

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.

I reached out to Marybeth Schubert, public affairs officer for Dakota County which administers the benefits and James Backstrom, the prosecutor who would prosecute David Rucki for this act, if it’s illegal, but neither responded to me.

Rucki wants an unspecified amount above $50,000 for all the defendants, according to his lawsuit.

ID-100230451

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

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

Judge David L Knutson

“The rule of law was not adhered to and the entire trial was simulated litigation… ALL Judge Knutson’s orders are not merely voidable, these orders are already VOID.” ~ K.B. Complaint Against Judge Knutson

Shame on you for allowing this family to be torn apart by your orders. Shame on you for forcing children into a relationship with a father they are terrified of. Shame on you for forcing these children to make the drastic decision to go on the run in order to protect themselves…In cases like this I have to wonder how our system got to the point that destroying families in today’s society is ok.” ~ L.M. letter to Judge David Knutson

(Hastings, Minn) 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.

The complaint accuses Judge Knutson of a “pervasive pattern of misconduct and impropriety” that includes:

-Bias, “acts for improper purpose to deny one party’s fundamental rights

-Making false statements of material facts

-Failure to follow the law

-Failure to follow the children’s “Best Interest”

-That Judge Knutson ordered Sandra to use specific providers he hand selected under the guise of therapy; yet these providers do not provide therapy. Rather, they provide forensic evidence for use against the mother.

-Judge Knutson abused his authority by forcing Sandra, under the threat of arrest, to disclose her location and phone number to a known abuser (whom she received a protective order against). This directly contradicts  a Minnesota law requiring judges to protect victims of stalking and abuse, and to prevent such disclosures of information to the abuser.

-Acting with malice

Read complaint in its entirety: Complaint Against Dakota County Judge David Knutson (Red Herring Alert)

On September 11, 2013, attorney Michelle MacDonald filed a Federal Civil Rights Action against Judge Knutson on behalf on Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

The Grazzini-Rucki custody trial commenced one week after this complaint was filed, on September 12, 2013. Which means that Judge Knutson was under investigation while presiding over a case that he was accused of misconduct on. Judge Knutson was also presiding over a case while a Federal Civil Rights Action against him was pending.

At the beginning of trial, MacDonald asked Judge Knutson to recuse himself, which he refused to do stating, “With respect to you notifying me that I’ve been made party to some Federal lawsuit for civil rights violations, I’m not aware of that. I have no information about that. I’m not concerned about that. We’re going to proceed…” MacDonald presses on, reminding Judge Knutson that she wrote him a letter to inform him about the lawsuit. Judge Knutson’s initial response is evasive then he admits he did receive notice of the lawsuit, and recounts some details. Which means Judge Knutson is caught lying in court. Judge Knutson refuses to recuse himself, and moves forward with trial stating “I‘m not going to hold that against your client or prejudice your client for something you do” and states a Federal Civil Rights Action is “irrelevant“.

The Board of Judicial Standards responded on November 12, 2013, and determined, despite overwhelming evidence of each of these claims, 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“. It is unclear if the Board was aware of Judge Knutson’s conduct during the custody trial.

The Civil Rights Action faced a similar fate, excusing Judge Knutson’s actions under the guide of judicial immunity.

On November 25, 2013, David Rucki is granted sole custody of all 5 children. At the time of the order he was on probation for a guilty plea involving an OFP violation (Case No. 19AV-CR-11-14682, discharged from probation 10/17/2014. Judge Karen Asphaug conducted pre-trial on that case). 

On February 11, 2014, Judge Knutson filed a complaint against attorney Michelle MacDonald with the Lawyer’s Board. MacDonald said about the complaint, “Judge Knutson’s complaint came after I complained about to him to the Board of Judicial Standards about this: On September 12, 2013, Judge Knutson had me participate as an attorney in a client’s child custody trial in handcuffs, a wheelchair, with no shoes, no glasses, no paper, no pen, no files,missing children – and no client. This was the day after I had filed a federal civil rights action against him, on behalf of that client…MNBar.org Michelle MacDonald Candidate Information A hearing was recently held concerning the complaint against MacDonald, a ruling has not been issued at the time of this blog post.

Judge Knutson now sits as a member on the Board of Judicial Standards. No one in the family court system has been held accountable for the disastrous results of the Grazzini-Rucki case despite numerous complaints being filed.

When abuse allegations, and concerns for the safety of the Rucki children, were raised in this case the Court’s focus was not on the welfare of the children but instead pursued a dangerous agenda. Instead of protecting the children from harm, Judge Knutson and the various professionals involved, inflicted of trauma on children to force reunification with the parent they feared by taking an “assertive stance..to expose them to the object of their fear” and to “desensitize them“. (Dr. Gilbertson Letter).  The Court sought to silence by any means, the parent, Sandra, who sought to protect the children and thereby, stood in the way. The events that led up to the Rucki girls running away is a direct result of the court’s own failings.

Had Judge Knutson, the professionals, appropriately responded to abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children and worked to protect them, there might have been a different outcome than a family completely destroyed; and children who may never recover from the abuses inflicted on them.

horrendousfamilycourt2

For More Information:

Complaint by K.B. Against Judge Knutson

Chaos, Horror After Courts Step in for Rucki Family by Michael Volpe

Pressured, Threatened S. Rucki Bravely Speaks Out Against “Horrendous” Family Court

Potential State Witness Wrote Letter to Judge Knutson – Criticizing Court’s Failure to Protect Rucki Children from Abuse

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.

Secrecy Is The Freedom Tyrants Dream Of

  

State Agency That Disciplines Judges Fights to Keep Operating in Secrecy after 56 Yrs.

AUGUST 2017

A California judicial commission that’s operated in secrecy for more than five and a half decades is engaged in a legal battle to thwart an audit ordered by state legislators and Judicial Watch has filed a court brief supporting the long overdue probe in the name of transparency. A court hearing has been rescheduled three times and shuffled around to different judges, with the latest scheduled for August 17 before Judge Suzanne Bolanos in San Francisco Superior Court. The case sheds much-needed light on the unbelievable history of a taxpayer-funded agency that’s conducted its business in private—and with no oversight—for 56 years, even though protecting the public is among its key duties. The agency is known as Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) and it’s charged with enforcing rigorous standards of judicial conduct and disciplining judges in the nation’s largest court system.

California’s court system serves over 37 million people and has more than double the judges (1,882) of the federal judicial system, which has 840. The CJP should serve as a tool to keep the system in check. Instead the commission has dismissed 90% of complaints about judges in the last decade, according to figures published in a California newspaper. Only 3.4% ended in disciplinary action and less than 1% led to public censure. None of the decisions were transparent, the news story reveals, and critics have demanded accountability for CJP for years, asserting that the commission gives “biased and inept judges a pass.” In its 2016 annual report, CJP discloses that 1,079 of the 1,210 complaints it received were dismissed after “initial review.” Discipline was issued in only 45 cases with more than half of the offenders receiving an “advisory letter.” Eleven others received “private admonishment,” six got “public admonishment” and eight “public discipline.” Only one judge was removed from office and another received public censure. Offenses included on-bench abuse of authority, administrative malfeasance, bias or appearance of bias and improper political activities.

Last year, a California legislative committee authorized State Auditor Elaine Howle to conduct the first-ever examination into the CJP, including whether the commission upholds due process when considering allegations against judges and how investigators determine which complaints to dismiss. Lawmakers finally acted after mounting pressure from a variety of sources, including Court Reform LLC, a group that pushes for fair and transparent courts that’s found CJP is “ineffective at enforcing judicial discipline, wastes public money and is too secretive about its operations.” An in-depth probe conducted by the group compares the data and policies of judicial disciplinary commissions in California and three other states and finds that the CJP is “under-investigating and under-disciplining judicial misconduct and misappropriating public funds.” It calls for the state auditor to investigate. Howle is appointed by the governor and her office functions as an independent external auditor that provides nonpartisan, accurate and timely assessments of California government’s financial and operational activities.


CIT

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards

The Board on Judicial Standards is an independent state agency (meaning no outside oversight) that responds to complaints about Minnesota state court judges for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  If it is determined that a judge violated the Code, the judge may be disciplined by the Board or by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The Board also handles judicial disability matters, issues advisory opinions, and seeks to educate judges and others about judicial ethics.

Board Elects New Officers for 2017-2018

Timothy Gephart

Judge David Knutson

On December 16, 2016 the Board elected the following officers to two-year terms beginning January 1, 2017:
Chair:  Timothy Gephart (public member)
Vice-Chair:  Judge David L. Knutson (See complaint against Judge Knutson and the BJS boilerplate response below)  
The Board also selected attorney Cindy K. Telstad as the third member of the Board’s Executive Committee.

Brief bios of the Board members are available here.

The Board has ten members: one judge from the Court of Appeals, three district court judges, two lawyers, and four citizens who are not judges or lawyers. All members are appointed by the Governor and, except for the judges, require confirmation by the Senate. The Board is supported by an Executive Secretary, a Staff Attorney, and an Executive Assistant. The Board on Judicial Standards supports the statewide outcome of efficient and accountable government services.

The General Fund is the state government’s main operating fund with the majority of funds coming from state taxes.

The Minnesota Constitution authorizes the Legislature to “provide for the retirement, removal, or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent, or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Minn. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 9.

Minn. Const. Art. 8, Sec. 2  Officers subject to impeachment; grounds; judgment. “The governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general and the judges of the supreme court, court of appeals and district courts may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Minnesota Legislature just set up “figure head” enforcement agencies to give the “illusion of oversight, law and order” (Simulated Justice) to the general public. The Minnesota Legislature rendered the agencies powerless to do anything about Citizen Complaints and Minnesota Governmental unit transgressions. Our Tyrannical Government counted on most citizens not having the financial resources nor knowledge to follow through on forcing their complaints and/or issues from being addressed and resolved. And for anyone who would dare press the complaints and issues beyond the initial “status quo guardians”, demonization, discrediting and economic retaliation are used to neutralize these voices of discontent and dissent.    Don Mashak~ Political Google Site

We have options people. Passivity, complacency, ignorance and fear are not among them!

 law-How-to-Bring-Justice-to-Judges-copy

%d bloggers like this: