Is Minnesota Safe with Judge David Knutson on the Bench? In Three High-Profile Cases, Showed Leniency to Dangerous Child Abusers

(Courtroom 2F, Dakota County Judicial Center, MinnesotaJudge David L. Knuston aka “Korrupt Knutson” presides over yet another controversial case – this time giving a drastic downward departure, meaning a sentence more lenient than recommended by guidelines, for an unlicensed daycare provider convicted of brutally assaulting, and nearly killing, a 13 month old boy.

Due to the severity of the injuries, the child was not expected to survive – today he is 2 years old and suffering from permanent brain damage.

Has justice been served? In two separate high-profile cases – the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki divorce/custody case and the criminal trial of child predator Dennis Roy – Judge Knutson showed leniency to a perpetrator of child abuse, and gave sympathy instead of prison.

A deeper look into all three of these cases suggests a pattern that Judge Knutson’s reckless disregard for the safety of children, and for public safety, has enabled dangerous abusers to avoid the punishment their heinous crimes warrant. Is the public safe with Judge Knutson on the bench?

#1 – The Merchant Case (2016/2017) : No Prison for Daycare Provider Who Nearly Killed a Toddler

Source: pinterest

Background: On September 22, 2016, parents Jessica and John Merchant say their child “WM” was in good health, and showed no sign of any problems, the day he was dropped off at the home of Mariel Alexandra Grimm. Grimm, a mother and unlicensed daycare provider, had been watching “WM” since he was 9 weeks old. Grimm says that after being dropped off at her home that day, “WM” was at a usual level of activity, and that he “he was playing on the floor with some toys and seemed fine…” The day started off like any other, then ended in tragedy.

Grimm was the only adult in the home the day “WM” suffered a near fatal brain injury. At the time, Grimm was caring for 5 five other children – four of her children who were being home-schooled, and another daycare child.

“WM” was dropped off at 7:15 am; Grimm said she cuddled with “WM” and then laid him down in a pack n’ play. Grimm then went upstairs, and left “WM” alone, in the basement, to nap. At 8:47 am, Grimm heard “WM” crying and went to change his diaper, and brought him upstairs where he ate some cereal. After breakfast, Grimm brought “WM” back to the pack n’ play, and left him alone in the basement again so she could home-school her 4 children in the upstairs level of the home. In her statement to police, Grimm did not recall how long “WM” slept.

When “WM” woke again, Grimm went to change his diaper and noticed “WM” was stiff and unconscious. Grimm tried to rouse “WM” but he would not respond. Grimm then called Jessica Merchant who instructed her to call 911. The 911 call was made at 12:51 pm, an ambulance arrived soon after. When medics arrived, they found Grimm holding “WM” – who had a pulse but was breathing very shallow and was unresponsive. Medics noted that one of “WM”’s pupils was extremely dilated, and the other was not, a sign of head trauma. At the hospital, “WM” was diagnosed with a massive subdural hematoma (a build up of blood between the layers of tissue that cover the brain, a sign of severe trauma) and required emergency surgery.

Physicians treating “WM” stated that he would have become unresponsive immediately after or shortly after the head trauma occurred. The physicians also testified that type of trauma “WM” suffered is beyond what a toddler would experience if they had a normal fall or bump to the head, and the severity of the injury is consistent with being violently shaken or thrown. Meaning the greater force applied to the head, the more severe the damage to the brain and functioning will be. A severely injured infant would not be able to regulate any behavior requiring higher cortical functions, such as eating, sitting, playing, laughing, or walking – which is how “WM” now presents.

“WM” was diagnosed as suffering from abusive head trauma. He required surgery to remove a part of his skull in order to alleviate the swelling around the brain and spent months in the hospital. Medical experts testified that the injury inflicted on “WM” is consistent with “a violent acceleration-deceleration event, such as a high-speed motor vehicle collision or being severely shaken or thrown..”

An online comment says this about the case: “..Her (Grimm) story has changed repeatedly — her timeline is both inconsistent and incoherent and isn’t supported by the physical evidence.

Her daughter testified that the boy woke up crying while Mariel was in the shower, her daughter got her mother out of the shower who was angry about it, then Mariel was heard yelling at the boy to shut up. He then went entirely silent.

The boy suffered permanent and severely debilitating brain damage. To the extent that he is expected to remain a toddler in his capabilities for the rest of his life (though he is hoped to exceed those expectations). The damage was described, by one of the premier pediatric neurosurgical and neurological teams in the entire United States, as one of the worst cases of TBI that they’ve ever seen…Comment VO

Grimm noted in an online post that attorneys were “happy” that Judge Knutson was appointed to her case, and they had good reason to be considering the favorable outcome she would receive. Grimm was convicted in July 2017 by a jury of 1stdegree felony assault; sentencing occurred in September 2017.

“WM”, an adorable little boy with eyes that smile, chubby cheeks and golden blond hair, suffered from permanent brain damage and will never fully recover from injuries. The rest of his childhood will include continued medical treatment, and uncertainty. The Merchants said during their victim impact statement that “WM” cannot walk, requires a feeding tube, and suffers from seizures and intractable pain.

Mother, Jessica Merchant, said,” It is impossible to convey the tragedy and depth of devastation and sorrow as we watched our son fight for his life for days and weeks…

His life has been forever altered. Instead of wondering where he’ll go to college, or if he’ll be an engineer like his daddy, or a teacher like his mama, or an astronaut or a writer or an athlete, we have to wonder if he’ll even be able to have a job … to participate in school … to live on his own.”

Many in the courtroom cried after listening to the heart-wrenching victim impact statement. The Merchants asked Grimm be given the harshest sentence possible.

Despite the severity of “W.M’s” injuries, Judge Knutson showed sympathy – not to the “W.M.” or to the Merchant family but to the woman convicted of shaking the child, Mariel Grimm. Knutson praised Grimm for “cooperating” with the prosecutor’s office and her attitude in court; to which Judge Knutson bizarrely notes,”She has expressed ongoing love and support for the victim..” An “expression of love” does NOT involve violently shaking or throwing a toddler, causing his brain to hemorrhage!

Judge Knutson said he was also touched by the letters of support for Grimm but ignored the victim impact statement of the child’s parents, and the reaction of the public to it. 

Prosecutor Heather Pipenhagen said, “All of Ms. Grimm’s good qualities … do not mitigate what she did on September 22, 2016 to this child..Make no mistake, she took his life. He’s alive, but Ms. Grimm took his life.”

Grimm was facing up to 8 years in prison but in an act of misplaced mercy, Judge Knutson stayed the sentence so that Grimm will avoid prison. Instead, Grimm will spend up to 90 days in county jail but could be released in as little as 60 days. Grimm could also be released from jail to attend counseling appointments, and to home-school her 4 children. In addition, Grimm has been sentenced to 60 days of electronic home monitoring, 200 hours of community service and 15 years of probation. Grimm has an open case with CPS, her children were not removed from her home, but she has been required to be supervised when with them. As part of the conditions for probation Grimm is required to follow all directions of CPS. Grimm says she is innocent, that “WM” came to her home with injury, and plans to appeal.

A Fundraiser has been set up to help the Merchant family pay “W.M.’s” medical bills: Help with Medical Bills

Read More About the Merchant Case:

Daycare provider Mariel Grimm gets probation in shaken baby case (City Pages)

Eagan day care provider sentenced after baby left brain damaged (Twincities.com)

Eagan Day Care Provider Guilty Of Assaulting Toddler (Patch)

 

#2 – Dennis Roy Case (May 2013) : Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist, Victim Imprisoned By Ongoing Trauma, Flashbacks

f977a5803269bd9513becb79f34711aa

Dennis Michael Roy, pleaded guilty to felony first-degree criminal sexual conduct after raping and repeatedly assaulting a 5-year old girl, a relative, from Eagan (Case No. 19HA-CR-12-495).

Roy faced a maximum of 30 years in prison and $40,000 in fines…but instead he walked free. Roy appeared before Judge David L. Knutson, who handed down his sentence on March 22, 2013. Judge Knutson sentenced Roy to a 16-year stayed prison term and 20 years of probation.

In September 2014, Roy was found guilty of a probation violation for loitering in public with an open bottle of alcohol. He served 45 days in jail.Roy has 18 prior convictions, including second-degree burglary, multiple motor-vehicle thefts, multiple DUIs, trespassing, disorderly conduct and multiple domestic assaults.

The child involved continues to struggle with the assault, and suffers severely from the effects of trauma with flashbacks, anxiety and depression.

Read More on the Roy Case:

Never Forget: Judge Knutson – Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist

Child Rapist Gets Stayed Prison Term, 20 Years Probation

 

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Divorce/Custody Case: Abuser Given Sole Custody of Children He Victimized, Lifetime Ban From Children Against Protective Mother

Judge Knutson is the family court judge who presided over the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody trial after it was illegally re-opened. Judge Knutson also demanded that ALL legal matters concerning the Grazzini-Rucki family be placed under his jurisdiction alone, and no other. By “coincidence” all the judges appointed to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s other legal matters (appellate, child support, criminal) share a connection to Judge Knutson, and all have issued extremely harsh rulings against her – even violating the law to do so.

In September 2012, Judge Knutson court ordered the removal of mother and primary caregiver, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, from the home, causing all five children to run away after hearing the news. Judge Knutson instilled paternal aunt, Tammy Jo Love, a temporary guardian. Love had previously lost custody of her children due to drug use. The Rucki children feared Love, and say she mistreated them (one of the children told police after running away that Love hit her). Judge Knutson’s irrational decision came after allegations of sexual abuse involving two of the children were raised, which he was fully aware of. The Rucki children were apprehended and put into the care of a maternal aunt while Judge Knutson continued to work to give abuser, David Rucki, custody of the children who were so desperate to escape his abuse.

Instead of protecting the five Rucki children, Judge Knutson sought to isolate the children so they would have no avenue for help. Judge Knutson worked to give the abusive father complete control over the children – directly putting them in harm’s way. For the Rucki children, their childhood died the day their loving and protective mother was removed from their home, and their life, their existence would become a nightmare involving continued legal chaos and abuse; that would be impossible to escape, even as adults.

The traumatized Rucki children were then court ordered into reunification with identified abuser, father David Rucki. Some of the visits were facilitated in the Dakota County Judicial Center, where Judge Knutson used the court bailiffs to guard the doors so the children could not escape. Witnesses reported hearing the anguished cries of the children from behind closed doors during “reunification”. In another incident, the youngest child was heard screaming like a wounded animal, held captive by a therapist bent on “deprogramming”. The older siblings made efforts to help but were prevented and eventually separated from the younger siblings so they would be easier to control. Judge Knutson’s failure to protect the five Rucki children from the physical, mental and sexual abuse perpetrated by their father, David Rucki, has directly lead to these children being further abused, and now held captive by a custody ruling that has sentenced them to a life of torture.

Judge Knutson’s failure to consider the safety of the Rucki children created a crisis in which two of the eldest Rucki sisters ran away again on April 19, 2013, again citing fear for their safety when Judge Knutson attempted to place them again into the care of Tammy Jo Love.

While the eldest sisters were still missing, Judge Knutson ordered a custody trial, to be held on September 11-12, 2013 (note: the custody trial was held in the same courtroom as the Mariel Grimm criminal trial). During trial, Judge Knutson ordered Sandra’s attorney to proceed with while handcuffed and strapped to a wheelchair, without her client present, and no files, and not even her shoes or glasses. The custody trial was rife with due process violations, Constitutional violations, and legal error – in effect was a rigged trial masterminded by Judge Knutson. Under circumstances of great injustice, in November 2013, David Rucki was granted sole custody of all 5 children. At the time of the court order, Rucki was on probation for violating a protective order issued against him, after his continued abuse of Sandra. Judge Knutson later slapped a lifetime ban against loving and protective mother, Sandra – prohibiting her from any physical, verbal, or written contact with her children. Sandra has not seen or heard from her children in over 5 years, and grieves their loss every day, in every breath, she takes.

The two oldest Rucki sisters remained in hiding, living on a therapeutic horse ranch, and refusing to return to their father, David Rucki, stating he abused them. Witnesses say both girls exhibited emotional and physical symptoms consistent with abuse. On the ranch the sisters were well cared for, and nurtured, and began to not only heal but thrive in their new environment, which they considered home. Tragically in November 2015, after 2 years the sisters were discovered, and despite their pleas for help, and the recommendation of a social worker to keep them in foster care for their safety, Judge Michael Mayer (a close friend of Judge Knutson) returned the sisters back into the custody of David Rucki. To attest to his violent nature, Rucki was on probation for a violent road rage incident at the time the girls were put into his care.

Sandra was later convicted of 6 counts of felony deprivation for her efforts to assist her daughters, who ran away from abuse. She has filed an appeal, and has not stopped fighting for justice, and to keep her children safe from abuse.

The Grazzini-Rucki case is yet another example of Judge Knutson showing preference to a dangerous abuser, and purposefully ignoring the safety concerns and well-being of a vulnerable child. Yet again, the abuser is given protective status while the child is placed in harm’s way, with the assistance of Judge Knutson.

Against all logic, Judge Knutson has shown sympathy to dangerous child predators and abusers. Criminals go free when jail is warranted, and vulnerable children are denied the justice and protection they deserve.

Is Minnesota safe with Judge Knutson on the bench?

Advertisements

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

RICO

Anna M Lambert in response to FAMILY COURT INJUSTICE 

the state courts cases that where heard in those non compliant administrative family courts are not even real courts but a criminal action involved in RICO and RACKETEERING incidents and those JUDGES and ATTORNEYS involved in such CRIMINAL action after cases go through FEDERAL COURTS can and will lose their PRIVILEGE to serve in their current position and their right to practice law will and can be REVOKED by the actions of their VICTIMS across this great nation which there alone parents with even closed cases can get their cases investigated for JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and get their closed cases reviewed , and judgement over turned and children returned Google US courts and forms for civil case anyone can file anyone can establish their own case and due to the fact these CPS case are Administrative courts and are non compliant to Judicial rules they are already in several violations of conflict of interest which is JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT which is grounds for every case to be reviewed and over ruled when an injunction is implied

RICO and Racketeering every CPS case is criminal intent to defraud the federal government funding if parents have not been charged with neglect or abuse the state workers and foster parents even manipulate the court by their fake cry acts , talk of desperate criminals that have to resort to crying on the stand pretending to worry about children and judges are stupid enough to fall far these pitiful acts , when has a court become a stage for pathetic criminal actors that puit on a play for profit, and yes families have the CD to verify these action by state officials and placement providers, COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Interference with Parental Rights, Retaliation, Privacy and Racketeering) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 RETALIATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS AND TORT OF INVASION OF PRIVACY)
The allegations set forth above are fully incorporated herein by this

…This allegation involves the acts of those Defendants who stopped
reunification of child /children in case _____________

The above actions constitutes a scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs of custody of ___________ __________ to damage or eliminate Plaintiffs claims against Defendants set forth in this litigation by manipulating _______________into believing the mother had drugs in system which was later proven fraud and falsified, that court needed to protect _________ and to make false allegations of abuse to assure termination of Plaintiffs parental rights in both cases

… Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs parental interest in biological children constitutes a property interest that Defendants knowingly and intentionally schemed to deprive Plaintiffs of by manufacturing false allegations of physical and potential sexual abuse.

. This racketeering count, based on the facts set forth above, is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962, with the predicate offenses of scheme or artifice to defraud pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1962(c), retaliation against a witness ( 18 U.S.C. §1513(e) and witness tampering (CR) 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b).

COUNT THREE 18 USC§1962(d) CONSPIRACY
… Plaintiffs incorporates herein all the preceding numbered paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.

… By reason of the aforesaid circumstances and events, the Racketeering
Defendants, together and with the known and unknown, unlawfully conspired together
and otherwise acted, and are currently conspiring together and otherwise are acting, in
such manner as to violate the provision of Title 18 USC 1962(a) and Title 18 USC
1962 (c) in violation of Title 18 USC 1962 (d).

… By reason of Defendants conspiring to violate said provisions of 18 USC
the Plaintiffs (a) have monetarily injured in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the
precise amount of which is presently unknown and will be proved at trial and
(b)continue to be damaged and hurt by the illegal acts

COUNT FOUR 18 USC 1962(a) DIVESTITURE
… Plaintiff incorporates herein all proceeding numbered paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

… At all times relevant hereto, the Racketeering Defendants have collectively constituted an enterprise, as defined in 18 USC s 1961 (4) to wit, an association which enterprise has been engaged in and the activities of which affect interstate commerce. As such the defendants have witnessed tampered and retaliated against a witness and exploited them under 18 USC 1962(c).

In committing the above referenced actions and/or omissions, the
Retaliation Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of state law, and engaged
in conduct that was the proximate cause of a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America, including but not limited to retaliating against Plaintiffs for asserting their
constitutional right to seek redress of grievances from government and for exercising
their First amendment right to defend themselves from the false allegations raised by
Defendants and providing ___courts___ with Plaintiff’s mental health report prepared by___state recommended provider evaluation __
thereby violating Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the
above described violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are entitled to
all rights, remedies, in law or in equity, available to them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of custody and time with and suffered
humiliation and degradation because of Defendants’ Unconstitutional acts.

… Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
… Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages

Las Vegas Judge Has Defense Attorney Handcuffed During Trial to “Teach Her a Lesson”

 

Las Vegas Justice Peace Judge Hafen

On Monday, Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen ordered Deputy Public Defender Zohra Bakhtary to be handcuffed and placed within the area where defendants that are in custody normally are seated in the Las Vegas Justice Court. According to the judge she had violated “courtroom decorum” by speaking after he had told her to “be quiet.” (Transcript included below.)

Later he explained to the Las Vegas Review Journalin a phone interview:

“There’s been a progression of steps in the courtroom where I’ve tried to let her know it’s not proper decorum for her to continue to talk over me or interrupt me after she’s already made her argument,” he said. “Once an argument is made, then you have to allow the judge to respond, so there’s a clear record, and you shouldn’t be interrupting the judge as the judge is making a ruling. … I’ve been trying to work with her. And today it just spilled over to where I thought, ‘Well, clearly she’s not understanding what I’m trying to tell her.’ ”

However, according to Bakhtary, she was simply trying to properly defend her client and the judge wouldn’t listen to her argument. (Once again, via the Las Vegas Review Journal.)

“It all happened so fast,” she told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Tuesday, a day after Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen ordered her placed into custody.

Hafen Bakhtary Transcript Las VegasShe was left to sit silently, alongside inmates, while her client was sent to jail for six months.

Moments earlier, Hafen told Zohra Bakhtary to “be quiet,” as she tried to argue that a man facing larceny charges should not be thrown behind bars. After Bakhtary tried to speak, the judge asked her if she wanted to be found in contempt.

“I was not trying to argue with the court,” Bakhtary said. “I was just trying to calm the situation down. I was never allowed to speak. I was never given the opportunity to respond to his question. Had I been given the chance to actually respond, it would have been, ‘Absolutely not…’”

“Every day I zealously represent my clients,” Bakhtary wrote in a statement to the newspaper. “Every individual who goes through our criminal justice system has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. It is a frightening day when a lawyer is locked up for fighting on behalf of her clients and their rights. That is precisely what I was doing, my job. I was placed in handcuffs for attempting to speak on behalf of my client … I have a great deal of respect for our judiciary. I did not act unprofessionally. I simply wanted the Court to listen to my argument and consider it before remanding my client for a 180 day jail sentence. The Court’s constitutional duty is to listen to arguments, not silence them.”

Continue Reading: http://www.copblock.org/160797/las-vegas-judge-has-defense-attorney-handcuffed-during-trial/

______________________________________________________________________________

I think Judge Hafen might have taken some training from Dakota County Judge David Knutson (Click on link below)

Michelle MacDonald

Attorney Michelle MacDonald

Judge David L Knutson Orchestrates Illegal Arrest of Attorney