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

Bloggers Have Same First Amendment Protections as Traditional Journalists – HRO vs Evavold Should Be Dismissed

This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.” ~ Choon James

The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption.

Given the cutbacks in traditional media, bloggers have taken up the slack, serving as watchdogs — with attitude…Yet we still see an uninformed attitude from some lawmakers and judges who seem not to understand that digital and social media deserve the same respect as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. ” ~ Ken Paulson, USA Today: Bloggers have rights, too: Column

IMG_2953

The Crystal Cox lawsuit is a landmark court case that defines, and upholds, the 1st Amendment protections of bloggers.. and is relevant when considering the recent HRO issued against Dede Evavold – blogging is an exercise of protected speech and does NOT constitute ‘harassment’!

Judge Karen Asphaug violated the 1st Amendment Rights of Dede Evavold by issuing a harassment restraining order against her that constrains, and censors, her exercise of free speech. A court cannot issue an order that violates the Constitutional rights of a party; as such the HRO issued by Judge Asphaug is void and should be immediately dismissed.

Dede writes about the HRO: “Most of you are aware of the fact that I was maliciously prosecuted and falsely convicted in the State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Evavold Case No.19HA-CR-15-4227.

There were several conditions beyond state sentencing guidelines imposed on me. However, the one condition that numerous attorneys and rank and file citizens are most amazed by is the restriction on my first amendment right to free speech (Judge Asphaug ordered that I may NOT reference the family involved in this case  on any social media)

As previously reported, I filed a witness tampering complaint against the petitioner in 2016. I had received a harassing and threatening extortion letter from petitioner’s attorney to intimidate me into deleting this blog and coerce me into changing not only my plea but to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra’s case. Also,  petitioner coerced and intimidated his daughter into recanting her testimony which led to the addition of 4 more felony charges against me.

Once again, the petitioner is violating the law by: retaliating against a person who was summoned as a witnes..”  For more info on the Evavold HRO please read: When We Lose Free Speech-We Lose Everything

CONSIDER THIS….

Court: Bloggers Have Same First Amendment Protections as Traditional Journalists

(Source: Slate, Daniel Politi, 1/18/2014)

“A blogger—and, really, the public at large—has the same protections for free speech in the United State as a traditional journalist and can only lose a defamation lawsuit on an issue of public concern if plaintiffs manage to prove negligence.

In a ruling that may come as a surprise to many bloggers who probably didn’t even realize this was even a question, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Crystal Cox, a blogger who had lost a defamation lawsuit in 2011 over a blog post that accused an Oregon bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of fraud, reports the Associated Press. A jury had awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million.

 

To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment,’ writes Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox.”

 

__________________________________________

Confirmed: Bloggers Have First Amendment Rights as Corporate Media

(Source: Huff Post, ‘The Blog’. Choon James, 1/24/2014)

“On January 17, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Crystal L. Cox from Eureka, Montana who was sued by for defamation by Kevin Padrick, an attorney and his company – Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. Cox had written posts exposing fraud, corruption, money-laundering and so forth…
This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.

Many concerned citizens have no choice but to create their own blogs and websites to level the playing field in this blossoming social media warfare.

The government has its plentiful public relations specialists, paid for by taxpayers. Corporations and special interests have their hired PR consultants. There are hired mercenaries who feel no qualms about spinning the facts. News media can be bought or controlled by big money or shut down.

It’s not uncommon for the public to read articles or watch the TV news only to lament the irregularities or inadequate reporting. Oftentimes, critical issues are shunned or ignored by corporate media because of entwined relationships.

Bloggers with information or have intimate experiences and understanding of issues are critically needed now, more than ever.

Blog away!”

_________________________________

Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too

(Source: Law Street, Anneliese Mahoney, 1/21/2014)

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, ‘it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.’

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox….

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network…”

39580866-office-wallpapers

Public Domain Image