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”?

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

DavidFlames

In 2011, Judge David Knutson ordered the Rucki children into reunification therapy and supervised visits with father, David Rucki. This happened while a harassment order was still in place against Rucki, barring him from contact with the neighbors, their children and the children enrolled in the daycare they operated.

This emerging information raises questions on the Grazzini-Rucki case in regards to allegations of domestic abuse and the allegedly violent behavior of David Rucki.  If David Rucki is not safe around other children – why would he be safe around his own children?

Background: In September 2009 a neighbor filed for and received a harassment restraining order (HRO) against David Rucki due to his violent and threatening behavior; some of this menacing behavior occurred in front of small children. The harassment order included that David can not have any contact with the neighbor’s own children, and can not have contact with children in a local daycare (run by the neighbor).

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.

(The HRO is not being published to protect the identity of the victims)

While the HRO was in place, David violated the order. Judge Karen Asphaug dismissed the charges; Asphaug is now the criminal judge presiding over the cases regarding the missing Rucki sisters. The neighbors were so frightened that they placed security cameras around their home.

The HRO remained in place for 2 years – the only reason the neighbors did not renew the HRO was because Sandra Grazzini-Rucki 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. (Sandra’s protective order was later dismissed by Judge Knutson).

Knutson

Judge David Knutson

Rucki has made statements to the press that he does not have an anger problem and has never abused his children. Rucki admits that sometimes he just gets “frustrated”.

Michael Volpe has also published police reports filed against Rucki detailing other incidents where he exhibited threatening and violent behavior on his blog: David Rucki’s Greatest Hits (The Provocateur)

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.

In November 2013, Judge Knutson granted Rucki full custody of the children – at the time, the two eldest girls were missing, and both had made various allegations of abuse against their father, and disclosed abuse to the court-appointed therapist. Judge Knutson said the abuse allegations were not credible, and accused mother Sandra Grazzini-Rucki of brainwashing and parental alienation.

 

At the time of the court order giving Rucki sole custody, he was still on probation for a domestic violence charge with a violation of an order for protection. Judge Asphaug presided over the pre-trial on this case. David was discharged from probation on October 17, 2014 (Case No. 19AV-CR-11-14682). 

Does parental alienation alone produce multiple police reports concerning violent behavior, multiple witness reports and HROs in regards to violent and threatening behavior? Or is this just an abuse excuse?  Stay tuned to Red Herring Alert as we keep you updated on the latest developments in the Grazzini-Rucki case! 

 

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

Multiple witnesses confirm Samantha and Gianna Rucki were afraid of their father, David Rucki, and both described various incidents of physical and emotional abuse at his hands. The sisters said they felt safe at the White Horse Ranch, and did not want to leave. These statements were revealed in a recent report from an investigator with over 10 years experience in the criminal justice field, who interviewed the witnesses. 

Read the report in its entirety here: Witness Statements – Rucki Sisters at White Horse Ranch

Findings include the following:

  • Samantha and Gianna Rucki did not conceal their identity while staying at White Horse Ranch, and “stayed openly” using their legal names. The sisters frequently went shopping in town, and had their hair done at a local salon. They went to eat at nearby restaurants, attended church and on birthdays, people would come to the Ranch to celebrate with the girls.
  • Samantha and Gianna were free to leave the Ranch at any time, and both had access to phones and computers. Keys were also left in vehicles that the sisters had access to. The sisters were told they could leave at any time. The sisters reported that they stayed at the Ranch because they felt safe, and were being cared for. Samantha and Gianna also stated that they did not want to return to the home of their father, David Rucki, due to his violent and abusive behavior and would run away if returned his care. 
  • Samantha and Gianna had emotional and behavioral symptoms suggestive of abuse including: nightmares, afraid to be touched, were quiet and guarded, would cry when talking about their father or his abusive behavior, and their facial expressions and body language conveyed fear to those who saw them.
  • Specific instances of abuse were also mentioned including: They saw their father (David Rucki) choke their mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki), and he threatened to kill their mother. In another allegation, David Rucki threatened to kill their mother and them himself. The girls also said their father had physically and emotionally abused them, and showed a gun to them, inflicting fear. The girls reportedly said they “can’t live with him” meaning their father.
  • By all accounts, Doug and Gina Dahlen (White Horse Ranch) provided a safe, nurturing environment for Samantha and Gianna Rucki. One witnessed described White Horse Ranch as “a ‘safe place’ for children (and others needing help) where they can be open, listened to, encouraged to be themselves, grow in their faith, learn new skills, and find therapeutic relief in interacting with the animals”. 

It should be noted that the reports made by Samantha and Giana Rucki to these witnesses are consistent with other reports the girls made to therapists and court professionals in the past – and recently after being “recovered”; they have not changed their story in all the years they have cried out for help.

Red Herring Alert has posted audio testimony from Samantha Rucki (2013) that can be heard at this link: Patterns of Abuse (Red Herring Alert)

(Bing) The entrance to White Horse Ranch

 

 

Complaint Against Dakota County Judge David Knutson

Judge David Knutson MN Judicial Branch

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.  Read complaint below:

 

MN BOARD ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS RESPONSE

The Minnesota Legislature just set up “figure head” enforcement agen cies 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