Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

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

Advertisements

Things That Make You Go Hmmm …

Mariel Alexandra Grimm was convicted of first degree assault of a 13 month old toddler in July 2017. The child suffered a subdural hemorrhage that the child abuse pediatrician determined was associated with a violent acceleration-deceleration event, such as would happen in a high-speed car crash or the shaking or throwing of a baby. The boy survived his injuries, but suffered severe and permanent brain damage.
I was attending my probation violation hearing at the same courthouse on the day Grimm was sentenced by Judge David Knutson. He sentenced Grimm to 90 days in jail and 15 years probation as he determined she had a clean record, cooperated with court processes and was unlikely to reoffend.
Grimm was also given 60 days of electronic home monitoring and must perform 30 days on Sentencing to Service crews and 200 hours of community work service, as well as pay a $1,000 fine and restitution. Grimm could have received a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Minnesota daycare provider sentenced to 90 days in jail, maintains innocence

POSTED: SEP 28 2017 10:32AM CDT VIDEO POSTED: SEP 28 2017 06:36PM CDT UPDATED: SEP 29 2017 11:11AM CDT

 – Convicted of assault — a crime she says she didn’t commit – an Eagan, Minnesota daycare provider facing up to eight years in prison was given a much more lenient sentence Thursday morning. Mariel Grimm, 33, received a stayed sentence and will spend 90 days in county jail, with 15 years of probation.

Grimm has maintained her innocence. Despite her assertions, a court found her guilty of assaulting a toddler. Grimm was caring for the 13-month-old boy last September when she says he suddenly had some kind of seizure after waking up from a nap.

Continue Reading: http://www.fox9.com/news/mariel-grimm-sentencing


Now let’s look at my sentencing conditions

 

 

 

Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227               

State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold

Fee Totals $11,373.00

My contested probation violation hearing is scheduled for November 2, 2017.

 

Probation Revocation

Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Hennepin County, Minnesota

Robina Institute Logo

Criminalizing Whistleblowers

© 2015 Red Herring Alert. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: Red Herring Alert is an information and news organization. The information provided on this blog is intended as information only and is not intended to be legal advice. Each author on the blog provides information, personal opinion, and insight. None of the writers are attorneys, nor are they intending to provide legal advice or assistance with any court case. The writers do not necessarily agree with the opinions or blog posts of all other writers, but we support each other’s rights to free speech. Each writer is responsible for their own research and content.

The courts are continuing to legitimize malicious actions against me to silence me into submission. Yesterday I received 3 new charges for another writer’s posts on Red Herring Alert. At this rate, I will have a life sentence without the possibility of parole in a few months. See previous charges → MINNESOTA: COME ON VACATION-STAY ON PROBATION

Newest Charges Below↓

The system will always make criminals out of those who expose their criminal activities.

2013 Complaint Against Judge David L. Knutson Alleges Misconduct, Malice

2013 Complaint Against Judge David L. Knutson Alleges Misconduct, Malice

Judge David L Knutson

“The rule of law was not adhered to and the entire trial was simulated litigation… ALL Judge Knutson’s orders are not merely voidable, these orders are already VOID.” ~ K.B. Complaint Against Judge Knutson

Shame on you for allowing this family to be torn apart by your orders. Shame on you for forcing children into a relationship with a father they are terrified of. Shame on you for forcing these children to make the drastic decision to go on the run in order to protect themselves…In cases like this I have to wonder how our system got to the point that destroying families in today’s society is ok.” ~ L.M. letter to Judge David Knutson

(Hastings, Minn) A complaint filed against Judge David L. Knutson on September 4, 2013, outlines his mishandling of the Grazzini-Rucki case. The complaint also describes how Judge Knutson’s reckless actions contributed to ongoing chaos in the lives of the Rucki children, and deprived Sandra Grazzini-Rucki of her rights. The complaint concludes that Judge Knutson acted with malice, that there is no other reasonable explanation for his conduct.

According to the complaint, “The record on case no. 19AV-FA-11-1273 shows a disturbing pattern where throughout, Judge Knutson has engaged in multiple acts of misconduct and actual bias, has repeatedly violated parties rights, and consistently fails to follow the law…

Judge Knutson has repeatedly denied the mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) any and all contact with her children without any findings of endangerment, abuse or parental unfitness. In addition, throughout this case, Judge Knutson has made absurd statements in an attempt to somehow justify abuses of discretion.

The complaint accuses Judge Knutson of a “pervasive pattern of misconduct and impropriety” that includes:

-Bias, “acts for improper purpose to deny one party’s fundamental rights

-Making false statements of material facts

-Failure to follow the law

-Failure to follow the children’s “Best Interest”

-That Judge Knutson ordered Sandra to use specific providers he hand selected under the guise of therapy; yet these providers do not provide therapy. Rather, they provide forensic evidence for use against the mother.

-Judge Knutson abused his authority by forcing Sandra, under the threat of arrest, to disclose her location and phone number to a known abuser (whom she received a protective order against). This directly contradicts  a Minnesota law requiring judges to protect victims of stalking and abuse, and to prevent such disclosures of information to the abuser.

-Acting with malice

Read complaint in its entirety: Complaint Against Dakota County Judge David Knutson (Red Herring Alert)

On September 11, 2013, attorney Michelle MacDonald filed a Federal Civil Rights Action against Judge Knutson on behalf on Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

The Grazzini-Rucki custody trial commenced one week after this complaint was filed, on September 12, 2013. Which means that Judge Knutson was under investigation while presiding over a case that he was accused of misconduct on. Judge Knutson was also presiding over a case while a Federal Civil Rights Action against him was pending.

At the beginning of trial, MacDonald asked Judge Knutson to recuse himself, which he refused to do stating, “With respect to you notifying me that I’ve been made party to some Federal lawsuit for civil rights violations, I’m not aware of that. I have no information about that. I’m not concerned about that. We’re going to proceed…” MacDonald presses on, reminding Judge Knutson that she wrote him a letter to inform him about the lawsuit. Judge Knutson’s initial response is evasive then he admits he did receive notice of the lawsuit, and recounts some details. Which means Judge Knutson is caught lying in court. Judge Knutson refuses to recuse himself, and moves forward with trial stating “I‘m not going to hold that against your client or prejudice your client for something you do” and states a Federal Civil Rights Action is “irrelevant“.

The Board of Judicial Standards responded on November 12, 2013, and determined, despite overwhelming evidence of each of these claims, that the complaint “required no further action“. The Board further determined that the allegations did not sway them to take disciplinary action because the merits were not proven with a “clear and convincing standard“. It is unclear if the Board was aware of Judge Knutson’s conduct during the custody trial.

The Civil Rights Action faced a similar fate, excusing Judge Knutson’s actions under the guide of judicial immunity.

On November 25, 2013, David Rucki is granted sole custody of all 5 children. At the time of the order he was on probation for a guilty plea involving an OFP violation (Case No. 19AV-CR-11-14682, discharged from probation 10/17/2014. Judge Karen Asphaug conducted pre-trial on that case). 

On February 11, 2014, Judge Knutson filed a complaint against attorney Michelle MacDonald with the Lawyer’s Board. MacDonald said about the complaint, “Judge Knutson’s complaint came after I complained about to him to the Board of Judicial Standards about this: On September 12, 2013, Judge Knutson had me participate as an attorney in a client’s child custody trial in handcuffs, a wheelchair, with no shoes, no glasses, no paper, no pen, no files,missing children – and no client. This was the day after I had filed a federal civil rights action against him, on behalf of that client…MNBar.org Michelle MacDonald Candidate Information A hearing was recently held concerning the complaint against MacDonald, a ruling has not been issued at the time of this blog post.

Judge Knutson now sits as a member on the Board of Judicial Standards. No one in the family court system has been held accountable for the disastrous results of the Grazzini-Rucki case despite numerous complaints being filed.

When abuse allegations, and concerns for the safety of the Rucki children, were raised in this case the Court’s focus was not on the welfare of the children but instead pursued a dangerous agenda. Instead of protecting the children from harm, Judge Knutson and the various professionals involved, inflicted of trauma on children to force reunification with the parent they feared by taking an “assertive stance..to expose them to the object of their fear” and to “desensitize them“. (Dr. Gilbertson Letter).  The Court sought to silence by any means, the parent, Sandra, who sought to protect the children and thereby, stood in the way. The events that led up to the Rucki girls running away is a direct result of the court’s own failings.

Had Judge Knutson, the professionals, appropriately responded to abuse allegations raised by the Rucki children and worked to protect them, there might have been a different outcome than a family completely destroyed; and children who may never recover from the abuses inflicted on them.

horrendousfamilycourt2

For More Information:

Complaint by K.B. Against Judge Knutson

Chaos, Horror After Courts Step in for Rucki Family by Michael Volpe

Pressured, Threatened S. Rucki Bravely Speaks Out Against “Horrendous” Family Court

Potential State Witness Wrote Letter to Judge Knutson – Criticizing Court’s Failure to Protect Rucki Children from Abuse

Paycheck and Pension

Longtime Stearns judge Landwehr to retire in September


Retirement in the judicial branch is really not retirement. There are currently 91 “retired” judges in MN that are practicing statewide as “senior judges”.

What are senior judges? Retired judges who are temporarily serving as judges.  Judges can retire, receive their pension and continue to get paid by taxpayers.

Double dippers: Senior judges’ combined compensation costs taxpayers millions

Click to see MN Senior Judges:→ Judicial Officer Directory    

Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/mn-district-courtrooms-seeing-unprecedented-influx-of-judges/282889361/

Image result for courthouse news serviceRetired Judges Fight for Right to Double Dip

ALBANY, N.Y. (CN) – New York is cracking down on double-dipping — the practice by which state judges collect both pensions and salaries after they hit retirement age — but the Court of Appeals focused Tuesday on whether putting retirees to work is actually cost-effective.

Arguing for the retired judges challenging the scheme, attorney Robert Spolzino noted that the state faces a new cost in trying to avoid paying his clients a salary.

Every time the state takes a judge off a case because they start collecting a pension, he said, the state begins paying into the pension of a new judge earning the same salary.

Meanwhile retired judges are “not getting anything extra by what they’re doing,” said Spolzino, of the firm Wilson Elser Modkowitz Edelman & Dicker.

“They are being paid for work they’re doing going forward,” he added.

Lee Adlerstein, an attorney for New York’s Administrative Board of the Courts, countered this position. Some retired judges pull in more than $250,000 a year between their fill-in salaries and their retirement pensions, he noted.

One of the jurists presiding over this afternoon’s appeal emphasized that the case will have far-reaching effects.

“It is relatively common,” Judge Eugene Fahey said of double dipping, noting  that he himself has heard of a number of judges fit the bill.

“So the question is then,” Fahey added, “it’s not the legality of the action but the criteria [used to limit it].”

New York judges must retire at age 70, but a provision in state judicial law allows retirees of the Supreme Court system to fill in as needed until age 76. In most states, a supreme court represents the highest tribunal, but the name is used in New York to designate trial courts for each of the 62 counties.

According to data from the fiscally conservative Empire Center for Public Policy, more than 500 people in New York sought and received permission to collect public pensions between 2015 and May 2016 while working for state or local government positions.

“These waivers are supposed to be used as temporary solutions for the rare instances when a retiree is the only person available and qualified to do a job,” Empire Center Executive Director Tim Hoefer said in a statement.

Taxpayers “have a good reason to question why they’re paying someone twice,” he added.

Retired justices who want to continue must seek recertification every two years from New York’s Administrative Board of the Courts, which evaluates for mental and physical fitness. When the state changed the rules in 2013, however, judges learned that they had to choose between staying on the bench of collecting pensions.

After the new policy went into effect, retired Judges Gerald Loehr, J. Emmett Murphy and William Miller filed suit. Case documents show that Loehr is entitled to a $66,000 annual pension, while Murphy and Miller receive a $91,300 and $89,000 yearly pension, respectively.

Their case hit the state’s highest court this afternoon after a three-judge panel in the Appellate Division found the new rules against double-dipping unconstitutional.

Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera suggested today the rule might be overbroad.

“In this case, you just have a blanket rule that is ignoring the qualifications of the individual,” she said.

Rivera questioned Adlerstein why the state failed to define what was necessary in the board’s stated goal of “expediting the business of the court system.”

“Is there no line in the sand?” she asked. “Is it whatever the board says is necessary?”

Adlerstein argued that judges have no constitutional right to both a judge’s salary and a judge’s pension simultaneously.

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore did not appear to take part in this afternoon’s hearing with the other six judges on the Court of Appeals. How the  court will rule is still unclear. Some of the judges noted that the rule change costs the retired justices nothing: While retired judges serve on the bench, their pensions are merely suspended not revoked.

“No one is taking your pension away,” Judge Michael Garcia said.

Another key issue is whether judges have a right to be certificated. Spolzino said that there is no right to certification but that judges have a right to be considered for certification. “That is what this case is about,” he said.


MN Pera Logo

Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota

Retirement Benefits
What is Combined Service?

Combined service can provide you with benefits for public service under more than one retirement program. However, you must have at least six months of service with each fund to qualify. For many PERA members, this is service under the Police & Fire, Coordinated, Basic, or Correctional plans, as well as the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund division of the Association. In addition to PERA’s defined benefit plans, it can also be public service covered by any of the retirement funds listed below:

  • Minnesota State Retirement System:
    – General Plan
    – Correctional Employees Retirement Plan
    – State Patrol Retirement Fund
    – Unclassified Employees Retirement Plan
    – Judges’ Retirement Fund
    – Legislators’ Retirement Plan
    – Elective State Officers’ Retirement Plan
  • Teachers Retirement Association
  • St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association
  • Duluth Teachers Retirement Fund Association (recently consolidated with Teachers Retirement Association)      http://www.mnpera.org/

THE FIX

August 01, 2016  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki story/The Fix.   Podcasts: Archived programs

 August 01, 2016  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki story/The Fix

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/22387094

 

%d bloggers like this: