Lawless Lakeville

Scandal in ‘Lawless Lakeville’: Matt Little Illegally Elected Mayor?September 12, 2016

Matt Little, Lakeville??

Lakeville, Dakota County, MN: Mayor Matt Little is accused of committing fraud by lying about his address in order to meet residency requirements needed to run for office as council man, and later, mayor in Lakeville. The allegation, raised by Terry Dean, Nemmers includes, “City Of Lakeville Mayor Matt Little Doesn’t Even Reside In Lawless Lakeville?  2010 & 2012 & 2014 Affidavit Of Candidacy Proves Little Resides In Rosemount? 2016 Affidavit Of Candidacy & 2014 Lawyer License Info Prove Little Resides in Farmington? How Many Days Has Little Lived In The Lawless Shit-Hole Called The City Of Lakeville, Huh? Not A Single Day?” Scandal Alert! City Of Lakeville Mayor Matt Little Doesn’t Even Reside In Lawless Lakeville?

According to the Minnesota Constitution, a candidate must live in the city for at least 30 days before a city election in order to serve as a mayor. If a mayor fails to maintain a city residency, state statute provides that a vacancy in office is created. Handbook for Minnesota Cities: Elected Officials & Council, Structure and Role

Little was a former Lakeville city council member (2010). He was ran for mayor in 2012, and won as the youngest elected mayor, and was elected again in 2014. Records show during the time that Little served as mayor, he did not live in Lakeville, and did not meet residency requirements. As a law student, Little should have been aware of those requirements.This means that Little fraudulently ran for mayor, and illegally held office.

spam clip art

Records Include:

  • 2010 Affidavit of Candidacy showing Matt Little’s address as 16162 Fairgreen Avenue in Rosemount. In 2010, Little served on the Lakeville city council. Property tax records indicate this home belongs to Little’s parents.
  • 2014 Affidavit of Candidacy shows Matt Little’s address as 16162 Fairgreen Avenue, Rosemount
  • 2014 Minnesota Supreme Court Lawyer’s Office Registration Listing for Little’s law license lists his address as 17523 Freeport Ct in Farmington. Dakota County Property Tax records verify this home as belonging to Little.
  • 2016 Filing for Senate showing Matt Little’s address as 17523 Freeport Ct in Farmington.
  • The Minnesota Secretary of State business record details for “Little for Lakeville” (file #3230155-2) list Matt Little’s address as 16153 Finland Avenue in Rosemount. Little is using his brother’s Lakeville address to qualify for eligibility. However, Dakota County Property Tax Records indicate this home actually belongs to Little’s parents. “Little for Lakeville” is a Minnesota Assumed Name, which was filed on February 25, 2009. The filing status is listed as Active / In Good Standing until 2019.

Minnesota Secretary of State Listing: Little for Lakeville

Minnesota Secretary of State Listing: Little for Lakeville

Dakota County Property Information Search - Matt Little, owns a home, and makes his primary residence, in Farmington

Dakota County Property Information Search – Matt Little, owns a home, and makes his primary residence, in Farmington

Little is also exploiting the tragedy of the Grazzini-Rucki case to make a name for himself politically.

Little took time from his busy schedule to publicly thank the Lakeville police department, Jim Backstrom and Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena “for bringing peace and justice to our community” after securing a guilty verdict against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. Little has given special attention to the Grazzini-Rucki case while ignoring more serious crimes occurring in Lakeville. For example a Lakeville fire lieutenant recently resigned from the department after being charged with giving alcohol to a minor, and then raping him. In another recent case, a body was found dead at the side of the road. According to Little “peace and justice” was restored to Lakeville after Sandra was convicted, even as more serious crimes that pose a real threat to public safety are happening. Then again if Little does not live in Lakeville, does he really know what is happening there???

peacejustice

Also disturbing is that Little’s public applause implies that he supports David Rucki, and supports the unjust family court decisions that have caused so much pain and upheaval in the lives of Sandra and the children.

In truth, it is David Rucki who poses a danger to the community. Rucki has a long history of violent behavior, history of criminal convictions and has been connected to various financial scams. David Rucki’s Greatest Hits (Police Reports), The Provocateur Yet Matt Little remains silent, and never made a public announcement when Rucki was convicted of assault, domestic violence with OFP violations, or anything else he has done.

How can the community be safer when its own system to secure “peace and justify” is not only failing but also promoting corruption, at epic levels?

Stay tuned for updates!

https://justice4grazziniruckifamily.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/mayor-matt-little-scandal/

Unwarranted: Was the Arrest Warrant Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Improperly Handled?

In August 2015, a sealed warrant for the arrest of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was “accidentally” posted on the public webpage of the Dakota County Sheriff’s office leading to the warrant being widely published, and shared, in news media outlets. Sensitive information about the sealed warrant was also given to abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, from The Star Tribune. Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie claims the leak was just a “glitch”.

The original warrant was then pulled down from the public website then re-sealed again, as if nothing had ever happened. The original warrant was put under a 2nd seal (re-sealed) and never served to Sandra but instead sent U.S. Marshalls after her, claiming she was a “fugitive”. How can you be a “fugitive” when you were never informed of proceedings, and never served with a warrant? 

Sheriff Tim Leslie

Sheriff Tim Leslie

Could that “glitch” cost Dakota County their case against Sandra? A recent court ruling states that improper service is grounds for dismissal; certainly in this case, there was not only improper service but outright negligence to protect information so sensitive that the judge ordered the warrant to be sealed. 

Signed, Sealed, but NOT Delivered

When someone is suspected of a crime, law enforcement obtains a warrant of arrest which is a document signed by a judge authorizing the detention of an individual, or authorizing the search and seizure of an individual’s property.

In the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, a nation wide warrant for arrest was submitted by Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena before a judge, and put under a seal on August 12, 2015. Sandra was charged with 3 counts of felony deprivation of parental rights. According to Keena a seal was needed “because disclosure could cause defendant to flee, hide, or otherwise prevent execution of the warrant”. The seal was to last until Sandra is arrested, and returned to the state. What evidence did Keena have to substantiate a sealed warrant? To date, no evidence has been presented that would justify such an extraordinary measure. 

Kathryn Keena (Source:http://minnlawyer.com)

Kathryn Keena (Source:http://minnlawyer.com)

Was a Sealed Warrant Necessary?

A seal means that the warrant is filed in secret, and its existence will not be made public. The subject of the warrant has no idea that they are wanted on charges until they are apprehended. A sealed warrant is usually reserved for special circumstances where public knowledge may jeopardize the investigation and/or issuance of the warrant.

Putting a seal on an arrest warrant is NOT a common procedure; and is even more extraordinary when used against an ordinary Minnesota Mom. Sandra has no prior criminal history, and has attended all scheduled court dates (related to ongoing custody issues, she has NO prior criminal history) – even travelling from out of state to do so. Sandra has also worked at the same job for 28 years, and maintains a stable lifestyle. She posed absolutely no risk of danger to anyone, and was certainly not a flight risk. 

Further, the police knew exactly where to find Sandra – according to the police report, the Lakeville police had previously issued search warrants for the airline she worked for, and had no problem finding out her address, phone number, and employment information. Sandra was being monitored before the warrant was issued. While this was happening, Sandra maintained her normal routine, and did not display any signs that she would evade any legal process.

A summons to appear at a court date would have been sufficient, rather than going to these unnecessary and costly, efforts used by Dakota County.

Somebody’s watching me… (Public Domain: http://www.acclaimimages.com)

Sealed Warrant Goes Public Due to a “Glitch”

Despite the exhaustive efforts of Dakota County to seal the arrest warrant, there was a glitch (or perhaps a leak?) and out of all the warrants entered in the system…somehow only the sealed warrant belonging to Sandra was “accidentally” posted publicly on the Dakota County Sheriff website. Dakota County continued to issue a fugitive warrant on a woman who did not even know a warrant had been issue. Sandra had never been served, nor had her attorney been served (in fact the attorney was only notified of the existence of a warrant after a call from the Star Tribune!)

And if that was not bad enough (gasp!) the Star Tribune, who had been in contact with Lakeville police for months, was alerted and went public, announcing an arrest warrant had been issued for Sandra.

Brandon Stahl of the Star Tribune broke news of the arrest warrant on August 18th: Mother sought in case of two missing Lakeville girls

Brandon Stahl, Star Tribune

Brandon Stahl, Star Tribune

Follwed by Michael Brodkorb, also of the Star Tribune, posting an update on August 21st on his Twitter feed, mentioning the arrest supposedly sealed warrant: https://twitter.com/mbrodkorb/status/634764171125592064

The Star Tribune then informed Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, about the sealed warrant…and gleefully spread the news across multiple social media venues. The seal had been broken on the warrant as the news spread nationwide thanks to the special efforts made by Stahl and Brodkorb at the Star Tribune. Keep in mind one of the common reasons that a warrant is sealed is to prevent news of the warrant from reaching the media, who could compromise the case with disclosure.  

Michael Brodkorb~ terminated reporter, Star Tribune

Michael Brodkorb~ terminated reporter, Star Tribune

By “coincidence” a local news outlet reports on the close relationship between Lt. Jason Polinski of the Lakeville Police Department and the Star Tribune,A Star Tribune story in April provided new information that helped police build a case for an arrest warrant for Grazzini-Rucki, who previously was considered a “person of interest,” in the case, Polinski said.Police looking for mother in disappearance of daughters in Minnesota

Even David Rucki himself acknowledged the connection,”..Rucki added he was “very grateful” for the assistance of law enforcement and media attention..” David had alot to be “grateful” for considering Michael Brodkorb of The Star Tribune tipped him off about the sealed warrant. Father of missing Lakeville sisters ‘relieved’ by warrant for ex-wife’s arrest/

At that point there is no reason for the warrant to remain sealed, instead providing Sandra with a notice to appear in court would have been appropriate. Instead, Dakota County relentlessly pursued Sandra. At great cost to tax payers, Dakota County had the warrant removed from the public website and then re-sealed. Sandra was apprehended by U.S. Marshalls, in Florida, and she endured a brutal journey being transported across the country, chained up in the back of a van for over 8 days. Keep in mind that Sandra works as a flight attendant, and she could have easily arranged her own transportation back to Minnesota – as she had done numerous times in the past to answer to proceedings related to her custody dispute. 

Recent Case Presents Compelling Reason for Dismissal

ID-100178787

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at freedigitalimages.net

 The common law and the Constitution afford the public a qualified right of access to judicial records and proceedings. 

The significance of the sealed warrant being publicly posted, and then making the news outlets, is that information about the sealed warrant was not only improperly released but also improperly served. Even more important, every individual is protected by laws designed to uphold personal liberty. These laws are in place to limit the government’s ability to take our freedom or property without due process. 

In the 2011 case of Jones v. Brown County (Civil No. 11-CV-568, SRN/FLN) the District Court found that, “ Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), improper service of process may be grounds for dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). In this case, none of the defendants have been properly served. “

The Court then dismissed a claim made against Brown County because, “It is clear that process was not properly served in this case. “ And, “With regard to the individual defendants, under Minnesota Law service may be effectuated “by delivering a copy [of the summons and complaint] to the individual personally or by leaving a copy at the individual’s usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(a). The only attempt at service upon the individual defendants in this case was by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the county offices in which these defendants work. These mailings did not constitute service by mail, as the mailings did not include two copies of Form 22, or a substantially similar notice and acknowledgment form, as required by Minnesota law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.05. Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for service upon an individual. Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for insufficient service of process…

And because Plaintiffs improperly served the original Complaint, this action was never properly commenced. See R. 3.01. “ Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_11-cv-00568/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_11-cv-00568-1.pdf

Given that the sealed warrant was improperly served, the Prosecutor’s Office should promptly dismiss all charges. Plz stay tuned to Red Herring Alert for news and updates!

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. “ ~ Mahatma Gandhi

(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!