Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

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

Advertisements

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

TS Radio Shut Down While Discussing Grazzini-Rucki Case

Journalist and author, Michael Volpe says, “Broadcast was hacked twenty minutes in. Someone must not like what I’m saying about this case.

Listen Here: TS Radio:Mike Volpe & Sandra Grazzini..Minnesota, Dakota County battle continues

Hosted by Marti Oakley

Join us this eveing as Mike Volpe and Sandra Grazzini talk about the latest developments in what has to be THE divorce case of the century here in Minnesota.  Dakota County, notoriously infamous for its blatant corruption continues its aggression against the defendant.  Tune in for the latest in this extremely strange case.  Just goes to show you….money talks and can buy you all sorts of things in the right places!

Mike Volpe

Check out my new book Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World’s Last Custody Trial

“I always said no matter how much corruption there is, it’s never greater than the individual or the might of doing the right thing-” Frank Serpico

dakotacojudicialctr

Call to Action

Intercomm Radio Presents Michael Volpe Freelance Investigative Journalist

Click to listen:  Intercomm Radio Presents Michael Volpe Freelance Investigative Journalist  (Bar shown below is at the top of the page)

About Michael Volpe;

After spending a decade in finance, Michael Volpe has been a freelance investigative journalist since 2009. His work has been published locally in the Chicago Reader, Chicago Crusader, Chicago Heights Patch, and New City. Nationally, Volpe’s work has appeared in a wide variety of publications including the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller, Crime Magazine, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Newsletter, and Counter Punch. Volpe has been recognized by whistleblowers as leading the charge in getting their stories out. His first book Prosecutors Gone Wild was published in October 2012, his second book The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers was published in February 2013 and his third book Bullied to Death was published in August 2015.

https://www.bombthrowers.com/author/michael_volpe/

Censorship

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. Well, ALMOST everyone.

Probation Conditions in State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

“You will not reference any of the XXXXXXXX-XXXXX family on any social media.”

I previously posted a press release on Darren Chaker, who reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds. A Good Day For The First Amendment.

After corresponding with Mr. Chaker regarding my own First Amendment violations as well as numerous other violations in my case, I was enlightened further about our inherent rights.  See Below

“Rights might be inherent, but ideas need to be taught.” Maida Buckley, retired classroom teacher in Fairbanks, Alaska

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Focusing on the First Amendment issue,  I see a few flaws in Condition 2 preventing referencing to specific people in social media:  Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

What if you want to criticize the police/DA, the judicial process, etc but cannot even reference to your case since it makes reference to the names of the people you cannot make reference to? Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government because criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1217, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23728, *1, 33 Media L. Rep. 2569 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005)​ Yes that is my first First Amendment case where I overruled the California Supreme Court. See also, https://www.scribd.com/document/3698825/Press-Release-CAL-SUPREME-COURT-Reversed-by-Chaker-v-Crogan

Additionally, you have a First Amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record.

     Preventing Blogging is Not a Governmental Interest.

For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant’s website is within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) The Government would in its burden as it did not prove the speech at issue would be outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Suppressing speech rarely is justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct, and in any event the justification “must be ‘far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms”’ and supported by “empirical evidence” Barnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S 514, 530-32, 121 S.Ct 1753, 1763-64, 149 L Ed 2d 787 (2001) (citing U.S v. Treasury Employees, 513 U S 454, 475 (1995))  

Protecting Reputation is Not a Government Interest.

If the Government were to say, ‘the families have been through enough and do not want to cause embarrassment or harm to there reputation’ – such would not be a proper Governmental interest. Specifically, protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law.  United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) “At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . .” Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014)

Further, you have the right to attack people if you believe such behavior was unethical. See Wait v. Beck’s N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[A s]tatement[] that someone has acted . . . unethically generally [is] constitutionally protected statements of opinion.”); Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (“[T]he use of the terms ‘shyster,’ ‘conman,’ and finding an ‘easy mark’ is the type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.” (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20)).

 Loss of Privacy Due to High Profile Case.

Also, due to all of the publicity in the case, it is likely the names you cannot blog about are deemed public figures. Public figures are entitled to less protection against defamation and invasion of privacy than are private figures with respect to the publication of false information about them. Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 1, 30 Media L. Rep. 1577 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

         

Purpose of Probation is to Rehabilitate and Prevent Future Criminal Conduct, Blogging is Neither.

Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement. (Citation omitted.) United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1977). United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287, 11 (9th Cir. Wash. 1981) See also, United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The conditions imposed run afoul of the supervised release statute because there is no reasonable relationship between them and either deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation.”)


“The Minnesota legislature delegated the authority to prosecute criminal matters to the county attorney, who was elected by the voters of that county.”

But, according to the Minnesota Attorney General’s website, the office does sometimes get involved in criminal matters:

The Dahlens have pled guilty in an associated case for their role xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, while another defendant, Dede Evavold, was found guilty as well. Inexplicably, Judge Karen Asphaug presided over all four cases.

A message left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office concerning the current legal situation was left unreturned. An email to Laura Flanders was also left unreturned and an email left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office was also left unreturned. The current Minnesota Attorney General is Democrat Lori Swanson, and she has held that position since 2007.


Excerpts from The “Justice” blog authored by an anonymous group of concerned citizens.
The Attorney General’s Office has been receiving documentation concerning the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX case for over 5 years and has refused to investigate or take any action in the face of serious allegations, and evidence, showing corruption in local government and law enforcement. However, when opposing President Trump’s immigrant order, Lori Swanson said “It does not pass constitutional muster, is inconsistent with our history as a nation, and undermines our national security.” The same can be said for Dakota County; yet instead of taking a public stance on a very real concern that affects not only the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX family but the entire state of Minnesota, and possibly tens of thousands of families victimized by an out of control court system, Swanson remains silent. Now is a time for leadership, not silence.

Another article written by Michael Volpe on indicates that other MN citizens have encountered the same type of cover-up by the MN Attorney General’s Office.
Excerpts Below:
The tact does not surprise John Hentges, another parent battling court officials on behalf of his children and suffering from disingenuous actions by the court, who told CDN that rather than representing the people of Minnesota the office covers up and represents the corrupt public officials.

“I reported the corruption to her (Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General) and to the governor and to the Minnesota Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Hentges.

Hentges said he spent time in jail for failure to pay child support for a bill which had already been paid in another state and his trials in the Minnesota Justice System opened his eyes.

“I found several other things they were doing in the criminal justice system.” Hentges said. “I firmly believe that nearly every single case in the 1st Judicial District is fixed in one way or another.”

 

LION NEWS: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF SAMANTHA RUCKI CALLING DAKOTA CO. JUDGE KNUTSON A “DICK”

Lion News: Exclusive Video Of Samantha Rucki Calling Dakota County Judge Knutson A “Dick”?

%d bloggers like this: