Commentary: Rucki Hires High Buck Attorneys in Lawsuit To Say He is Not Dangerous or Abusive

law-judge-gavel

Commentary on David Rucki Lawsuit Asks WHY is Rucki targeting an innocent church, it’s pastor and wife… while ignoring a woman who was directly involved in hiding his daughters: Michael Volpe Reveals: Rucki Hires High Buck Attorneys in Lawsuit To Say He is Not Dangerous or Abusive

Michael Volpe reveals another twist to the Grazzini-Rucki case in his latest article: David Rucki Claims Pastor and It’s Church Helped Hide His Daughters

David Rucki filed a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against several people and entities including a church and it’s pastor, and even the pastor’s wife, (as the lawsuit states) for making false claims that he is dangerous, when he is not, and encouraging his daughters to “leave their home”.

Rucki may spend nearly that amount on attorney’s fees alone – high buck Marshall Tanick and Lisa Elliott have been retained to represent Rucki in this lawsuit; the estimated costs of their services exceeds $1,000 per hour. It has not been explained how Rucki can afford legal representation from two attorneys, considering he claims that he is impoverished and is receives welfare.

From Volpe,“Even more shockingly, Rucki continues to qualify for public assistance while being able to hire two attorneys simultaneously.

David Rucki, who received 100% of the marital assets including four homes, nine cars, and a multi-million-dollar business along with sole custody of their five children, still qualified for public assistance through this very program.

‘The Father receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to the Title IV D of the Social Security Act,” said Judge Maria Pastoor in 2016, using this assistance as justification for ordering Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month in child support…’”

Volpe’s investigation of the case has revealed that,”..there is overwhelming evidence that almost anyone is in danger being in David Rucki’s presence.. And includes details of Rucki’s long history of violent, and criminal behavior, including,”Ten different people- his ex-wife, five children, two neighbors, in-law, and mailman- all previously successfully took out a restraining order against him.. If this lawsuit goes forward, more information concerning Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and the abuse of his family, are expected to emerge.

Rucki claims the defendants, which include, Dede Evavold and ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, compelled then teenage daughters S.R. and G.R. to “leave their home” and stay on a ranch for abused children by using “false statements” and “false threats” that their father, Rucki, is violent and would hurt them.

According to Volpe,“Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home from the care of their paternal aunt and to go with Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud Sauk Center and White Horse Ranch based on false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.” The lawsuit further states.

The lawsuit does not explain why this random church, its pastor and wife would go along with this scheme if indeed the girls were being manipulated into staying there by false threats…”

Both S.R. and G.R. stated the reason they ran away because the family court failed to keep them safe from their abusive father, Rucki, and they felt endangered in the current custody arrangement. Statements made by S.R. and G.R. have been consistent, and have not changed, until Rucki sent them out of state, under the watch of a guard, for “reunification therapy”. S.R. later admitted during a police interview that Rucki “pressured” and “guilted” her into recanting abuse allegations.

The lawsuit filed by Rucki states the defendants failed to notify authorities that S.R. and G.R. were staying on the ranch in violation of a court order.  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and co-defendants Dede Evavold as well as Doug and Gina Dahlen have all been charged with felony deprivation of parental rights, and convicted, for their role in assisting the girls.

The church, and it’s pastor, named in this lawsuit have never been implicated nor charged in connection with the disappearance of S.R. and G.R., who ran away in April 2013 and stayed on the Dahlen’s ranch until November 2015.

Another woman who assisted the runaway Rucki teens, Lori Musolf, has avoided criminal charges entirely. Musolf had extensive conversations with the runaway Rucki sisters in the days after their disappearance. Musolf also arranged the interview, and acted as a go between, for the Rucki sisters to appear on Fox 9 with Trish van Pilsum. She also failed to notify authorities. Will Rucki name Musolf in the lawsuit and seek damages against her???

Stay tuned for developments…

Read More:

Explosive Rucki police interview adds new wrinkle to story

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

Why Hasn’t Lori Musolf Been Charged for her Role in Assisting Runaway Rucki Sisters?

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home from the care of their paternal aunt and to go with Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud Sauk Center and White Horse Ranch based on false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.” The lawsuit further states.

The lawsuit does not explain why this random church, its pastor and wife would go along with this scheme if indeed the girls were being manipulated into staying there by false threats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terror-2662817_1920

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even more shockingly, Rucki continues to qualify for public assistance while being able to hire two attorneys simultaneously.

David Rucki, who received 100% of the marital assets including four homes, nine cars, and a multi-million-dollar business along with sole custody of their five children, still qualified for public assistance through this very program.

The Father receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to the Title IV D of the Social Security Act,” said Judge Maria Pastoor in 2016, using this assistance as justification for ordering Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month in child support.

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

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

ID-100230451

INVERTING REALITY

Who is Michael Bernard Brodkorb?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with additions from Red Herring AlertRepublican Party of Minnesota - Wikipedia
Michael Brodkorb is (WAS)Minnesota Republican activist, a former deputy chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, former communications director for the Republican caucus in the Minnesota Senate, under Senator Minority Leader David Senjem and later to Amy Koch when she was the majority leader of the state senate, and the creator of the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed In his role as an aide to Senjem and Koch, he is credited with helping to engineer the Republican takeover of the state senate in 2010. He and Koch were described as “the two most powerful people in the Minnesota Senate.” 

Image result for mike parry mn senate picture

Mike Parry leg.state.mn.us

Brodkorb served as deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party from 2009 to 2011, when he resigned to work for the congressional campaign of Minnesota state senator Mike Parry. Brodkorb abruptly resigned both from his position in the Senate and his position with the Parry campaign in December 2011.

Weeks later, Koch resigned her post as Majority Leader after admitting an “inappropriate relationship” with a male staffer. Brodkorb was fired the next day. MINNESOTA DEMAGOGUES EXPOSED: SENIOR GOP STRATEGIST AND SENATOR COMMIT ADULTERY?

Michael Brodkorb domestic dispute: Wife called 911 because “the level of anger in Michael’s voice scared both her and their three children.

The fall of Michael Brodkorb

Amy Koch Affair: Michael Brodkorb, Fired Minnesota GOP Staffer, Threatens To Expose More Affairs

Image result for Cal Ludeman

Cal Ludeman MN Legislative Reference Library

Brodkorb announced his intention to file litigation against the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Senate and Secretary of the Senate Cal Ludeman over his termination from the Minnesota Senate. Lawyers representing Brodkorb have announced additional claims against the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Senate and Ludeman over allegations that Ludeman disclosed private unemployment data about Brodkorb in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio. Brodkorb’s attorneys also announced plans to sue for defamation per se over statements Ludeman made in a press release where he accused Brodkorb of attempting to “extort payment from the Senate.”

On May 25, 2012, the Minnesota Senate released legal bills showing they had spent $46,150 to the first 3 months of 2012 to prepare a defense to Brodkorb’s suit. An analysis of the bill by the Associated Press showed the bulk of the $46,150 owed was due to attorneys retained by the Minnesota Senate repeatedly meeting with Ludeman.

On June 19, 2012, the Minnesota Senate announced additional legal bills in the amount of $38,533, bringing the total legal costs incurred by the Minnesota Senate due to the termination of Brodkorb to almost $85,000 since the end of the May 2012. (Click to view)→ Brodkorb, Minn. Senate settle lawsuit for $30,000

Fired Senate staffer Michael Brodkorb tells of ‘palace coup’                                         Gallery For > Dui Logo

On January 23, 2013, Brodkorb was injured in a single-car crash on Interstate 35E when his vehicle hit a concrete wall. He pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was ordered to pay a $500 fine.(Click to view) → Brodkorb DUI   

Michael Brodkorb talks scandal, lawsuit, and new leases on life: The City Pages interview

term photo

Amy Koch MN Legislative Reference Library

Amy Koch, former state Senate leader, breaks silence about her downfall

The Return of Amy Koch?

Michael Brodkorb says he was victim of a plot against Sen. Amy Koch. I get it, I was Michelle MacDonald’s campaign manager when she ran for MN Supreme Court in 2014 and learned the dirty world of politics in a baptism by fire! One would think however, that you wouldn’t pull the same dirty tricks on other victims of the establishment but I guess when you’ve sold your soul, compassion isn’t very high on the list.

For those of you that aren’t regular readers, let me explain Michael Brodkorb’s role in my Case No.19HA-CR-15-4227 which resulted in 6 felony convictions for one alleged “crime” of parental deprivation. (Not kidnapping or abduction which is what the media would have you believe).

Also, there is an affirmative defense for parental deprivation, but when evidence is withheld and suppressed, the defense is useless.   609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS
Subd. 2. Defenses. It is an affirmative defense if a person charged under subdivision 1 proves that: (1) the person reasonably believed the action taken was necessary to protect the child from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm.

Michael Brodkorb was a blogger for the Star Tribune from April 2014 through May 2016. He flipped from a republican to a democratic mouthpiece for the fake “less liberal” Star Tribune. Brodkorb became obsessed with demonizing and discrediting Michelle MacDonald when she ran for Supreme Court in 2014 against incumbent David Lillehaug (appointed by Governor Dayton). She won the Republican Party’s endorsement but narrowly lost to Lillehaug. The Star Tribune reported that her selection became an embarrassment when MacDonald’s contentious 2013 arrest on suspicion of drunken driving came to light. Never mind the forensic facts of the case:

Today, people are having to spend so muc by Michael Hudson @ Like Success

Michelle MacDonald

Michelle’s case was a traffic stop, and more accurately an unlawful pullover.  Michelle did not have any alcohol on the night she was stopped without probable cause.

  1. After dialogue with the officer about the reason for the stop, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or perform a field sobriety test.
  2. She asked to see a judge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 169.91 because it was obvious this officer was using questionable measures to fill his quota and was clearly abusing his power and authority. Any citizen can invoke this statute however, as can be seen from this incident, the system does not take kindly to exposing those who are not playing by the rules.
  3. Michelle was held and released from the Rosemount Police Station with NO CHARGES filed against her.
  4. On her own initiative, she went directly to a hospital for a drug and alcohol blood test to put to rest any questions about this incident. The tests came back zero alcohol and zero drugs. 
  5. Michelle filed an employee complaint against the Police Officer who unlawfully pulled her over.
  6. In response, she received a Citation in the mail with five criminal charges against her including charges for driving under the influence.
The Result: Jury convicts Michelle MacDonald of test refusal and resisting arrest.

MacDonald also filed a complaint against the GOP and several party leaders. She alleges the party threatened her and spread false information about her campaign in an effort to get her to exit the race. She said the party was in violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. Shocker, the complaint was dismissed by a judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Oh, and by the way, Attorney Michelle MacDonald filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Judge David Knutson in Dakota County, That was shortly before the media suddenly took an interest in the case I was involved in and after she applied for an opening in the MN Supreme Court. MacDonald was the pro bono attorney for the mother in the companion case and filed the suit on her behalf. Judges however, have unlimited immunity from civil prosecution and the case was dismissed. MacDonald was also arrested during the custody trial that was presided over by Judge Knutson for taking a picture during a break. The unyielding attacks against MacDonald continue to this day.

Michael Brodkorb became the main “reporter” in our cases after we were charged and thus began the relentless harassment and stalking in the name of “journalism”.

In September 2015, Michael Brodkorb surreptitiously recorded a conversation he had with me as a Star Tribune reporter and had it turned over to the Lakeville PD. This was prior to my charges in November 2015.

 Excerpt from Evavold Audio

Police Logo

Michael Brodkorb: No, let me just say. I knew David Knutson when he was a state senator, the last time I saw Knutson was, I think in 2007 when Pawlenty was inaugurated for his second term. So that’s the last time I’ve ever seen him that I remember. I have tried repeatedly to interview him, to speak with him, about this case. The person that I’ve probably tried to interview the most, has been David Knutson and anyone affiliated with the court system. I’ve gone down to the court, I’ve called him and I’ve done everything I could to try to get him to speak on the record. I’ve spoken with his clerk and I’ve spoken with everyone that I could possibly think of to try to get him to speak. There is no way and I believe this, if someone reviews the matters involved in this case and doesn’t immediately come to the conclusion that there are problems in the family court system, they are purposely trying for there not to be a problem with the court system, because a blind person could see that.

(I know you’re reading this Mr. Brodkorb so, I think you may want to reconsider your pervasive defamatory posts you are writing about me and refer back to 34′:50″ into the audio that was provided to Lakeville PD).

Image Courtesy of Sira Anamwong freedigitalphotos.net

At any rate, it’s around that time that Brodkorb became a pen for hire to harass and intimidate witnesses, interfere with the legal process and lie with impunity during our trials. Michael Brodkorb currently has a blog that is now entirely dedicated to demonizing and discrediting me to change the narrative in this case and shift the focus away from the true facts. He also added Allison Mann as a contributing author. Who is Allison Mann? Mann is a paralegal with Elliott Law Office and lives in Lakeville, Minnesota. Elliott Law Offices provides legal services to the father involved in this case, but Brodkorb states. “Elliott Law Office is not affiliated with Missing in Minnesota.” Okay, and I’ve got prime swampland to sell you! Also, Allison Mann has been the photographer of the numerous photos taken prior to my false court hearings on my false charges.

For those of you that are new to this site, I was served with a harassment restraining order (HRO), 3 charges for violating the order and a probation violation for allegedly “referencing the family” involved in my case. Protecting reputation is not a government interest and preventing blogging is not a government interest. 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))

The malicious HRO is legally meritless and in actuality, a false police report was filed against me. §609.505 Falsely reporting a Crime Subdivision 1. False reporting. Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a crime has been committed or otherwise provides information to an on-duty peace officer, knowing that the person is a peace officer, regarding the conduct of others, knowing that it is false and intending that the officer shall act in reliance upon it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. When you’re above the law however, it just doesn’t matter!

False claims of an immediate and present danger were also made to obtain an ex-parte HRO..Clearly, this is just a retaliatory SLAPP suit in disguise of false criminal conduct with the intent to intimidate, censor, disparage, burden, and punish me for exercising my free speech right to discuss my case and defend myself against the slanderous information being written about me.  I get that the overall goal is to silence any further public debate about the corruption that took place in my false criminal case as well as the false companion criminal cases.

As I’ve posted before, SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” It refers to a lawsuit filed in retaliation for speaking out on a public issue or controversy. You might be “SLAPPed” for actions such as posting a blog entry, posting a comment on another person’s blog, writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper, testifying before the legislature, reporting official misconduct, or circulating a petition. Often, SLAPPs are brought by corporations, developers, or government officials against individuals or community organizations that oppose their actions.

What’s amazing is that Michael Brodkotb was served with a restraining order by a co-defendant during these trials due to real repeated, unwanted and intrusive stalking behaviors (i.e. following and laying in wait to take photos, posting information and spreading false information on the internet to incite others against her).

This is a comment submitted by Pat Terry on MinnPost regarding the HRO against Brodkorb:  “Until there has been a full contested hearing on the matter, this is a non-story and to suggest that Brodkorb’s actions were somehow inappropriate based on an ex-parte hearing involving someone who is quite literally a court-certified liar through her felony conviction, is really unfair.”

The HRO was dismissed but Brodkorb makes the statement, “The chilling effect is that if someone doesn’t like coverage,” he said, “they could go to a courthouse and file what I believe to be a fraudulent document with fictitious information to game the system.”Protective Orders | Restraining Orders | Present Danger of Abuse or Harassment

“I can’t police the Internet. I’m not responsible for what – how people react rawly and aggressively to someone who has been convicted of six counts of deprivation of parental rights. And I’m very responsible in what I write in my content that I’ve written. Sandra has attempted to hold me accountable for other type of activity that appears on the Internet that I that I have no responsibility to police or address. I have a responsibility to watch what I say and how I communicate. But, and make sure it is done in an truthful honest way. And I’ve done so in the entirety in this case. … It’s a classic case of someone crying “Wolf!” Of Chicken Little the sky is falling. And eventually what she becomes is not a responsible and credible critic. Or someone who can be trusted to accurately document what’s going on. … Over the course of my reporting, have people said “I don’t want to comment.”? Sure. I don’t want to comment. And I move on to the next thing. … All for someone who just wrote the stories and approached it from an investigative stand point. … There are precious resources for the court. And we just can’t be wasting their time and money.” AM950RADIO @AM950 Radio [PODCAST]@MattMcNeilShow – Sep 16

We can however keep the taxpayers on the hook by wasting the precious court resources for a personal vendetta against me but I forgot. . . I’m not given special treatment – only special punishments!

A court also dismissed a libel suit against Brodkorb and his blog in 2007 in a case that was described as “breaking new legal ground in the world of blogging”.

Judge tosses libel suit against conservative Minnesota blogger

A judge threw out a libel suit this week against one of Minnesota’s most popular conservative bloggers, issuing a ruling that put the political Web site on the same legal ground as newspapers and broadcast news outlets.

Michael Brodkorb, a political operative behind minnesotademocratsexposed.com, expressed relief at the dismissal.

“I think this goes back to what I said from the beginning, that this was a frivolous lawsuit and the court agreed with me,” he said. “I’m glad that it’s over.”

Below are some of the defamatory posts that Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann have put on their blog: This really is psychological projection at its finest!

If that were true Brodkorb, don’t you think I would have been charged with assaulting a police officer? Interesting that there isn’t any audio or video of my home invasion by the Lakeville PD! What really happened? Inquiring minds want to know don’t they?

Michael Brodkorb is nothing but a political operative consciously discrediting, demonizing, and distorting the good guys for his own financial gain. Again, the real goal is to use the minions and legal system to continue to stalk, harass and intimidate me by dragging me to court, wasting my time on frivolous and false accusations and damaging my reputation. Nothing lasts forever though and all will be revealed whether or not I’m silenced.
Just how far will Dakota County go to silence me? Only time will tell, but if you want to know how over the top the persecution is, take a look at the judges and attorneys involved in attempting to stop any true reporting on this case.

Any questions?

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.