Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

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

Evavold HRO Is Harassment: Judge Asphaug has History of Suppressing Evidence on Behalf of Applicant

The Down and Dirty in Dakota County on the Fraudulent HRO filed Against Dede Evavold

Fraudulent Harassment Restraining Order filed against Dede Evavold, co-defendant in Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial, on July 28, 2017. HRO fails to prove any harassment or threat actually happened, fails to meet legal standard of harassment.

HRO petition includes many procedural errors, and should not have been approved. To proceed with the HRO creates a due process violation, and does not respect the legal rights of Dede Evavold.

The HRO was signed, and approved by Judge Karen Asphaug, who presided over all 4 trials of the co-defendants in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal case and has been described as being the “personal judge” of the applicant filing for the HRO, David Rucki.

Judge Karen Asphaug (Twitter)

Judge Asphaug has a history of covering up the violent and criminal history of applicant, Rucki – and this fraudulent HRO is just another example of that.

For example – During the criminal trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Judge Asphaug suppressed any mention of Rucki’s violent and criminal history; when Sandra testified at her trial she wasn’t even allowed to allude to the restraining order she and her children received against him. During the same trial, Judge Asphaug suppressed the Rucki social service records documenting a history of abuse allegations the children raised against their father.

Further, Judge Asphaug ruled to disallow nearly all of Rucki’s criminal history and forced Gina Dahlen to testify in multiple trials even though she was a defendant still awaiting her trial. (Read More: Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety by Michael Volpe)

And now, shocking revelations from the largely redacted evidence that Dede Evavold received, as part of her case, reveal that Dakota County is issuing a probation violation against her, and threatening  jail, when there is no proof to suggest that she did anything wrong..

“7/19/2017, Gilbertsen, John P: “I was able to locate a speicif article reference by the victim (David Rucki) and it did contain information and commentary on the victim(s), much what was negative and sensationalistic in nature. However, I was unable to determine who in fact runs the blog, as the postings are under Aliases which do not clearly identify the person posting…

And,“When I reported back to Supervisor Griffin I indicated I did not feel there was information that we could glean that make it clear Ms. Evavold is the writer or runs the blog..”

Based on this evidence alone, ALL charges against Dede Evavold in this fraudulent HRO, and alleged probation violation, should be immediately dropped – there is no evidence of harassment, and no evidence that she is responsible for the posts in question.

So why is Judge Asphaug, and Dakota County pursuing this HRO against Evavold?

It is obvious that the purpose of this HRO is to suppress public scrutiny, and end all discussion on the Grazzini-Rucki family court and criminal cases. And the  Chaos and horror after courts step in for Rucki family. Dede Evavold is being used as a scapegoat so that by threatening her with jail, fines, stripping her of Freedom of Speech and threatening other legal action sends a strong message to deter those supporting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or Dede Evavold, or deter those speaking out about this case. This protects Judge Asphaug from being exposed for her actions during all 4 trials of the Grazzini-Rucki co-defendants, where she violated numerous laws, violated the Constitutional rights of all 4 defendants, demonstrated bias and acted with outrageous abuses of judicial power.

This fraudulent HRO is an abuse of the legal, and serves only to harass Dede Evavold – that the case would proceed this far shows just how lawless the courts in Dakota County really are.

 

Millionaire Seeks Court Filing Fees from Homeless, Destitute Ex-Wife

The latest on the #grazzinirucki case from Michael Volpe and PPJ Gazette…

 

That David Rucki would file a motion to compel homeless, destitute ex-wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, to pay for his own court costs in legal proceedings that have destroyed her life.. is the same as charging for the nail he is driving into her coffin.

This is no different than what Saddam Hussein would do to his victims.. shoot them dead and then charge the family for the bullet.

Though the court has ruled Sandra Grazzini-Rucki too poor to pay for her own filings, her ex-husband’s attorney thinks she should pay for his.

The latest from journalist Michael Volpe…

 

Lisa Elliott, the long-time attorney for David Rucki, filed a notice for a taxation of costs- meaning she wants the other side to pay for the costs of filing- with the appeals court.

Attorney Lisa Eliott

In her response, Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald explained to the court that her client is a pauper.

Appellant, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, hereby objects to the taxation of costs and disbursements dated September 1, 2017,” MacDonald said in her response, “on the ground that: Appellant was granted informa pauperis status and is a pauper.”

By granting Grazzini-Rucki informa pauperis status the court has deemed Grazzini-Rucki too poor to afford to pay for her own filing fees and they are thereby waived; but that hasn’t stopped Elliott from demanding she pay for her client’s filing fees.

David Rucki

MacDonald, after receiving a $5,000 retainer in early 2013, has been working on Grazzini-Rucki’s custody case pro-bono; she was once forced to conduct part of a custody trial while handcuffed to a wheelchair.

The latest filing follows a similar filing by Elliott in late August asking the court which handled her client’s divorce to order Grazzini-Rucki to pay for all the filing fees- in excess of $3,000- she accrued in that court.

The series of events defy logic.

Late last month, the same appeals court upheld a previous ruling by Judge Maria Pastoor which ordered Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband nearly $1,000 in child support.

That appeal’s decision was authored by Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks.

David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who received 100% of the marital estate- which included a business, four homes, and nine classic cars- by an order of Judge David Knutson despite the standard in all divorce that distributions of marital estates be “equitable”.

While the court on one hand has recognized Grazzini-Rucki’s pauper status, the same court has ordered her to pay child support to a multi-millionaire even though she is homeless, penniless and jobless, rendered that way by the same court which is now ordering her to pay child support.

Lisa Elliott has refused to respond to repeated emails for comment.

Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota Courts, also did not respond to an email for comment.

___________________

Beau Berentson, Director of Communications and Public Affairs at the Minnesota Judicial Branch, receives his salary from the tax payers of Minnesota… and it is his job to answer your questions or comments, including those about the Grazzini-Rucki case.

Contact: Beau Berentson
Court Information Office
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
(651) 296-6043 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)

Send e-mail via contact form at: Minnesota Court Information Office

Or: beau.berentson@courts.state.mn.us

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.

The Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case as You’ve Never Heard Before… Hidden Truth Radio

F.A.C.E.U.S. Robin Lulu Marci Friedman Michael Volpe… and surprise guest Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Listen Here: The Grazzini-Rucki Story As You’ve Never Heard it Beforeichael-volpe-conservator-or-liberal-news

39533844-radio-wallpapers

Public Domain: http://bsnscb.com

More information on the Grazzini-Rucki case:

1) The definitive dossier documenting David Rucki’s violence: 99 pages of police reports, orders for protection, letters, affidavits, and more…

2) The propaganda of 20/20

3) The court created horror of the five Rucki children

4) Dakota County disallows nearly all Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s evidence and only then is she convicted

5) Dakota County slaps destitute Sandra Grazzini-Rucki with $975 per month in child support, $14,000 plus bill

FOIA request in No. Carolina custody battle draws national interest (Repost)

foia

READ HERE: FOIA request in No. Carolina custody battle draws national interest by Michael Volpe, CDN

(Union County, North Carolina: August 8, 2017)

The Union County (North Carolina) Sheriff’s Office (UCSO) has something to hide regarding their arrest of Kristy Newberry-Brooks, and maybe others.

That was the unmistakable subtext of a new lawsuit filed by WBTV against the UCSO and its Sheriff, Eddie Cathey…the station is seeking all records related to their arrest of Brooks in early 2016.

Brooks went into hiding for more than a year right before that county’s family court ruled to give her ex-boyfriend sole custody of their daughter despite her bringing forward evidence he molested her and others. An arrest warrant was issued shortly after Brooks did an interview with Nick Oschner, conducted while she was still on the run.

Brooks was initially charged with child abduction; She turned herself in shortly after the US Marshals became involved in the case.

But those charges went away shortly after her return and she now faces the far less serious charge of contempt of court; her ex-boyfriend has received sole custody of their daughter, however.

The US Marshals involvement was even more troubling since US Marshal Sean Newlin was involved not only in the Brooks case but in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s case, where the US Marshals claimed jurisdiction because the office suggested Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was a fugitive.

But when it was revealed that the warrant for Grazzini-Rucki’s arrest was sealed making it impossible for her to be a fugitive, the US Marshals did not provide any more clarification.

Dave Oney, public affairs officer for the US Marshals, did not respond to an email for this story…

%d bloggers like this: