19 YEAR-OLD SUES FOR DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Minnesota Nineteen-Year-Old sues her Father, Hennepin and Carver Counties, along with Social Workers, Guardians at litem, and lawyers for an excess of $240 Million for Deprivation of Civil Rights

03/17/2017 Minneapolis, MN, US

Annelise Rice, a hockey player at UND and graduate of Minnetonka High School, filed a lawsuit on March 17, 2017, in Minnesota federal court seeking damages for deprivation of civil rights by tortuous intervention in a mother-child relationship and deprivation of rights under color of the law (Civil Action No. 17-cv-796 ADM/HB).

Annelise’s father, Brent Rice, branch manager of Merrill Lynch Wayzata, is a defendant on the lawsuit. Employees of Hennepin County (Michael Borowiak, Jolene Lukanen, Michael Garelick, Richard Witucki, Judith Hoy, Jean Peterson) and Carver County (Nicole Mercil, Bethany Koch, Sarah Kulesa, Brenda K. Dehmer, Carole Cole), and Brent Rice’s lawyer, Cory D. Gilmer, are also listed among the eighteen defendants. The defendants include court-appointed Guardians at litem, Social Workers, and lawyers who were involved in the custody evaluation and CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) proceedings for Annelise Rice. The proceedings began in Hennepin County and were moved to Carver County when the family moved.

Judges, lawyers, and social workers no longer have absolute immunity and can be held responsible for their actions that deprive Constitutional rights, even if they are acting in an official role.

This case is highly unusual due to the large amount of defendants involved. The defendants conspired to deny Annelise access to the courts and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Annelise while she was still a minor. Defendants knowingly interfered with Annelise’s constitutional right to a relationship with her mother and four siblings, causing inordinate stress and difficulty.

Annelise asks the court for relief in an amount great enough to deter defendants and others in similar positions from engaging in this egregious misconduct in the future.There have been many cases of negligence by social services that have put young lives at risk. Social workers, Guardians at litem, lawyers, and judges need to be held accountable to prevent further neglect, abuse, and deaths of children in protective care. This lawsuit could potentially turn into a class action suit, because of the amount of families that have been mistreated in this way.

Contact:
Annelise Rice
More.moxie@me.com
612-991-1150


Read More About this Case:

Minnesota Appellate Court overturns mom’s conviction for ‘deprivation of parental rights’

Government Based Racketeering

Congressional Testimony: Dr. Sheila Mannix to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Chicago, Illinois

Credit Copyright: http://www.lawlessamerica.com/

WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A MN FAMILY COURT ACCOUNTABILITY ADVOCATE?

IZZI commented on Funding Fraud in the Courts

THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF THIS TROUBLING TREND IS DEVASTATING RESULTS TO THE FAMILY STRUCTURE! THE DANGER LAYS IN THE BELIEF THAT “GREATER GOOD” IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE “COMMON GOOD.” DECEPTION OF THE MIND WILL LEAD THESE SOCIOPATHS AT THE BREAKFAST TABLE TO “COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.” LEON FESTINGER ((1919-1989)) PROPOSED–MENTAL CONFLICT THAT OCCURS WHEN BELIEFS OR ASSUMPTIONS ARE CONTRADICTED BY NEW INFORMATION. THAN FOLLOWS: “‘Mandeville’s paradox is named after Bernard Mandeville, who posits that actions which may be qualified as vicious with regard to individuals have benefits for society as a whole. This is alluded to in the subtitle of his most famous work, The Fable of The Bees: ‘Private Vices, Public Benefits’. He states that “Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live; Whilst we the Benefits receive.”) (The Fable of the Bees, ‘The Moral’).

The philosopher and economist Adam Smith opposes this (although he defends a moderated version of this line of thought in his theory of the invisible hand), since Mandeville fails, in his opinion, to distinguish between vice and virtue (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VII, Section II, Chapter 4 (‘Of licentious systems’)).”‘ USING THE PLAIN MEANING RULE; ONE SEES HOW THE PARADOX TO THE FRAUD IN ACTION IS ‘WHAT IS VICIOUSNESS TO A FEW IN SOCIETY? WHEN THE GREATER GOOD IS AT STAKE! One needs to ask is this really acceptable when it starts affecting the very core of our State Constitutional and our Federal Constitutional Rights? THE COURTS WANT MORE FUNDING FOR OFFICIALS OF THE COURT; HOWEVER, WE ARE PAYING FOR THEM TO BE “PUPPETS ON A STRING” TETHER TO THE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG! **WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A Minnesota Family Court Accountability Advocate?


There have been a multitude of Family Court Accountability Advocates in MN. Below are a compilation of actions that have been made by various advocates in the state of Minnesota.
DON MASHAK’S HENNEPIN COUNTY MN FREE PRESS NEWS

Excerpts: Every year since 2005, the Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) Movement in Minnesota has asked for a hearing before the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The purpose of these hearing being to have these committees receive evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. Each year we have been denied said hearing. Additionally, the Government has engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional retaliation against the leaders of this movement causing some to move out of the state and at least one to move out of the country to escape the retaliation. Requests for such hearings at the Federal level have also been rebuffed. Clearly, WE THE PEOPLE have exhausted our peaceful remedies on this matter. Continue Reading: https://donmashakshennepincountymnfreepressnews.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/a-suggestion-to-dejected-bernie-sanders-followers/

In 2011, an informational only hearing for judicial reform was held at the Minnesota State Capitol.

Thursday, November 17, 2011
Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety
Chair: Sen. Warren Limmer
09:00 AM    Room 15 Capitol
Judicial Reform Informational Hearing

Video: http://www.senate.mn/media/media_video_popup.php?year=2011&flv=cmte_jud_111711.flv?usehostname

Excerpts regarding the Judicial Reform Hearing below are from the blog Carver County Corruption. The Carver County Corruption Blog was taken down due to threats of civil litigation. Facing potential civil litigation in XXXXX case, owner deletes blog     

Judge considering motion to shut down blog postings (Click to view)

Lion News Raises the Following Allegations Against Michael Brodkorb

Excerpts regarding the Judicial Reform Informational Hearing: “The audience was large, it included numerous family members, parents and other public devastated by the corruption in our judicial system of Minnesota. The behavior of the judges present who attended from the Minnesota District Judges Association (MDJA) was not received well by those in the room. These judges sat out of the way of the video camera, yet the public sitting close to them witnessed haughty and arrogant behavior about numerous issues brought up during the hearing. When the mention of the `bribes` allowed for judges in Minnesota came up these two judges laughed, smirked and shook their heads. Their arrogance was insulting to the family members and those in the room that have had their children, families and entire lives ruined as a result of this very law. This law has devastated the state of MN more than the public is aware. For grown men who represent the judicial system of Minnesota at the State Capitol and behave this way during a hearing regarding such important issues in our courts today lacks professionalism, class and sensitivity.

During the hearing one of these judges from the MDJA sat front and center answering questions and defending the judicial system and the laws in place causing such horror in our courts. This particular judge was defending the `incumbent` mention on voter ballots. He defended this issue by stating the public needs to know who is currently holding seat as judge – and that is known to the public by the incumbent mention on the ballots. He also stated that the public can be made aware of a judge with a bad reputation – and by the incumbent being on the ballots – the public can know to not vote for that particular judge.

A Minnesota senator replied the obvious, `I will bring up a case in Carver County… a recent case…` The senator spoke of the case where a citizen in Carver County is being charged for a blog outing a particular judge`s behavior.  The senator mentioned that it seems a judge will simply order his behavior to be removed from public view and charge money for it if it is not, so this argument presented today is not really the case, is it?

In response to the mention of the outrageous order from Carver County this judge replied, `I find that hard to believe`

About 5 minutes after this `unbelieving` judge got off the hot seat a gentleman nicely handed him the order signed by judge Richard Perkins from Carver County charging money for a blog. This unbelieving judge`s face flushed beet red. This same court order from Carver County removes legal and sole custody of small children from a loving mother – no law or reason supporting any ruling on the order.

Another one of Minnesota`s terrific senators stated during this hearing, `I respect the people more than I do our judicial system` This was a reality check as to why we were gathering: for the people. Not protection of a judicial system which is currently embarrassing the state of Minnesota.”


Twin Cities News Talk

Because Minnesota deserves the truth.  Posted Saturday, March 31st 2012

Radio Talk Show Host, Sue Jeffers, Minneapolis, MN – News Talk/AM 1130

Guests: Tim Kinley and Lea Banken On Air this Saturday, March 31st @ 1 pm, Judicial Accountability/Judicial Reform  

SueJeffers033112_1P_FamilyLaw ←(Click to listen)

Further Historical Information on Minnesota Courts

Posted on September 6, 2012  Carver County Corruption

The Grim Truth About MN Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea

VOTE DAN GRIFFITH FOR MN SUPREME COURT

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is up for re-election this November 6th in Minnesota. Lorie Gildea received Banken mother’s Writ of Prohibition (an emergency appeal) last August 2011. Gildea signed the paper denying Lea`s emergency appeal stating Lea had a remedy; a regular appeal that would take up to a year and thousands of dollars, of which time Lea would have no contact with her three young children. Lea filed her regular appeal and it has now been over a year since she has seen her children ages 2, 6 and 8. Lea`s case is still in appeal, no decision has been made.

Since this post was made, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.  STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-2156-A12-0771 https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/1302/opa112156-021113.pdf

Carver County`s Senator Juliane Ortman sent a letter to Chief Justice Lorie Gildea asking for an immediate investigation into Carver County Family Court practices back in April 2012.

(Click on documents to zoom)

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea

Senator Ortman has been approached for years by citizens in Carver County about numerous family court horror stories where mothers lose custody of their children to wealthy ex-spouses with a history of abuse convictions. It is a pattern in this county no one can deny. Senator Ortman and Lea Dannewitz (previously known as Lea Banken) were interviewed by KARE 11 after the Ortman letter went out. Lorie Gildea got wind of the coverage by KARE 11 and sent a letter back to Senator Ortman immediately stating a full refusal to conduct an investigation. KARE 11 stopped the airing of the investigation for reasons unknown. 

Lorie Gildea (incumbent) is up for re-election this November 6th. Gildea was appointed into office, not elected. Gildea is not a mother herself and is fully aware of the corruption in Minnesota`s judicial system. Gildea has allowed this corruption to continue. As a result hundreds of Minnesota parents, children and citizens suffer daily.

Every ballot in Minnesota this November will have a judicial section. Lorie Gildea`s opponent is Dan Griffith. Dan Griffith`s quest is to bring accountability back to the judicial system and ensure judges abide by laws and statutes that are enacted by the legislature and approved by the Governor. Currently, judges do not have to abide by the law – there is no remedy to hold them accountable.We have many readers contacting us and asking what they can do to help. Answer: get out to vote this November 6th. Vote Dan Griffith for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and help us bring change to a very broken court system in Minnesota.

Results from the 2012 Election: →Supreme Court


 

 

Group continues cause against alleged judicial corruption (Click to view)


Civil Rights Case Against Judge David Knutson

Published on Jan 17, 2014

2014/01/16 A U.S. Federal Court Hearing took place on Friday, January 10, 2013, at 2:00 PM on whether Judges sued individually are immune, even if they violate the civil rights of family members, by “temporarily” depriving them of their rights to their own children. Tim Kinley held a press conference in front of the court building before and after the court proceedings. Tim discussed the case and the interviews on this show.


Excerpt from letter that was distributed to the MN legislators and representatives in June 2013. 

Judicial misconduct has run rampant in the state of MN. There have been countless letters of concern, meeting with legislators, hearings on judicial accountability and other areas of concern. We have visited over 40 state legislators, including a visit to the Washington D.C. State Capitol. We have been interviewed for media coverage, and have exposed this corruption that is devastating the lives of people across this United States.

We have attempted in numerous ways, yet we have been ignored. Complaints to the Board of Judicial Standards, Professional Lawyers Board and other state offices have been notified of complaints.  Emails and documents show the lack of motivation to expose a well-known epidemic, yet everyone aware on the state level is CHOOSING NOT to act. One excuse after another has been presented to us, lawyers, judges AND legislators do not want to expose this, for obvious reasons.

We look to the area legislators and representatives as our voice to be heard. However, instead we are being ignored. WE NEED TO BE HEARD, children have been wrongly taken from their parents, families have been tormented by the court system, we have been impoverished, forced out of our homes, financially devastated and yet have once again been ignored. We take a stand for this to be exposed and acted on..


As you can see, there have been a lot of reform advocates in the state of MN. If we want to stop the corruption, we need to stop the systems that allow for money-laundering through federal grants and we need to pursue indictments of corrupt public officials!

Top 5 HHS Programs Endangering Women and Children
Healthy Marriage~Responsible Fatherhood & Faith~Based Grants . . . We Know What the Game Is!

Trumped Up Charges

U.S. Marshals Service inserts itself into Family Court drama

Once again, the U.S. Marshals Service is accused of inserting itself into a case to benefit an alleged child abuser.

Flag of the U.S. Marshals Service. (Public domain image, via U.S. DOJ)

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2017 — Once again, the U.S. Marshals Service is accused of inserting itself into a case to benefit an alleged child abuser. In January 2017, Kristi Newberry Brooks of North Carolina turned herself in after the U.S. Marshals Service put out a nationwide warrant.

Brooks had taken off with her daughter after making a series of allegations in family court that her ex-boyfriend was molesting their daughter. She disappeared in December 2015, on the eve of an emergency hearing in which it was presumed custody would change.

“I went into hiding with my daughter on December 30, 2015. This was after years of losing battles with the courts, DSS, and local law enforcement,” said Brooks, explaining the reason she took off with her daughter.

“I had been trying to protect my daughter from a documented pedophile who is just above the law here. The dad is from a very prominent family and well connected to those in power here. The dad had filed a fraudulent emergency custody motion that was set to be heard on December 31.”

Brooks provided medical records for her daughter and two other children who lived with her ex-boyfriend that were consistent with sexual abuse, including symptoms like vaginal and yeast infections. Brooks said all the infections went away once all contact between her daughter and her ex-boyfriend was blocked.

Brooks told this CDN reporter that once the U.S. Marshals got involved in January 2017, she felt she had no choice but turn herself in:

“I surrendered on January 30, 2017 after the U.S. Marshals were called in out of nowhere due to a criminal warrant being issued, again out of nowhere. The Marshals made it clear that I had no option. I was left with the option of cooperating and facing a local charge, or not cooperate and possibly face federal charges as well as have my parental rights terminated, along with anyone who had helped me facing federal charges. Not wanting to face federal charges and have my rights terminated, and definitely not wanting those who helped facing charges, I surrendered.”

Brooks arrived back in Union County, North Carolina on January 2017 to face charges of child abduction. Now, less than three months later those charges have been dismissed, but not before her ex-boyfriend received sole custody with Brooks receiving only four hours of supervised visitation at a cost to her of $900 per month.

“It’s extortion,” said Brooks’ boyfriend Jeremy Bess of the supervised visitation.

Bess said that the U.S. Marshals were used to hand a child to a pedophile:

“We believe in Kristy’s case that Union county sheriff’s office presented trumped up charges to a local magistrate, got a warrant for parental abduction, utilized the services of the U.S. Marshals to traffic a child to a child molester. After the child was delivered to the father, with the help of the Marshals, the charge for parental abduction was dismissed. It’s our belief that the Marshals were utilized under false pretense.”

An email to the Union County District Attorney’s Office was left unreturned.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/u-s-marshals-service-inserts-itself-into-family-court-drama-87214/#p4AW5y1ic1lmKSex.99

Censorship

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. Well, ALMOST everyone.

Probation Conditions in State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

“You will not reference any of the XXXXXXXX-XXXXX family on any social media.”

I previously posted a press release on Darren Chaker, who reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds. A Good Day For The First Amendment.

After corresponding with Mr. Chaker regarding my own First Amendment violations as well as numerous other violations in my case, I was enlightened further about our inherent rights.  See Below

“Rights might be inherent, but ideas need to be taught.” Maida Buckley, retired classroom teacher in Fairbanks, Alaska

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Focusing on the First Amendment issue,  I see a few flaws in Condition 2 preventing referencing to specific people in social media:  Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

What if you want to criticize the police/DA, the judicial process, etc but cannot even reference to your case since it makes reference to the names of the people you cannot make reference to? Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government because criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1217, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23728, *1, 33 Media L. Rep. 2569 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005)​ Yes that is my first First Amendment case where I overruled the California Supreme Court. See also, https://www.scribd.com/document/3698825/Press-Release-CAL-SUPREME-COURT-Reversed-by-Chaker-v-Crogan

Additionally, you have a First Amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record.

     Preventing Blogging is Not a Governmental Interest.

For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant’s website is within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) The Government would in its burden as it did not prove the speech at issue would be outside the scope of the First Amendment.

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))  

Protecting Reputation is Not a Government Interest.

If the Government were to say, ‘the families have been through enough and do not want to cause embarrassment or harm to there reputation’ – such would not be a proper Governmental interest. Specifically, protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law.  United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) “At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . .” Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014)

Further, you have the right to attack people if you believe such behavior was unethical. See Wait v. Beck’s N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[A s]tatement[] that someone has acted . . . unethically generally [is] constitutionally protected statements of opinion.”); Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (“[T]he use of the terms ‘shyster,’ ‘conman,’ and finding an ‘easy mark’ is the type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.” (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20)).

 Loss of Privacy Due to High Profile Case.

Also, due to all of the publicity in the case, it is likely the names you cannot blog about are deemed public figures. Public figures are entitled to less protection against defamation and invasion of privacy than are private figures with respect to the publication of false information about them. Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 1, 30 Media L. Rep. 1577 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

         

Purpose of Probation is to Rehabilitate and Prevent Future Criminal Conduct, Blogging is Neither.

Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement. (Citation omitted.) United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1977). United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287, 11 (9th Cir. Wash. 1981) See also, United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The conditions imposed run afoul of the supervised release statute because there is no reasonable relationship between them and either deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation.”)


“The Minnesota legislature delegated the authority to prosecute criminal matters to the county attorney, who was elected by the voters of that county.”

But, according to the Minnesota Attorney General’s website, the office does sometimes get involved in criminal matters:

The Dahlens have pled guilty in an associated case for their role xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, while another defendant, Dede Evavold, was found guilty as well. Inexplicably, Judge Karen Asphaug presided over all four cases.

A message left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office concerning the current legal situation was left unreturned. An email to Laura Flanders was also left unreturned and an email left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office was also left unreturned. The current Minnesota Attorney General is Democrat Lori Swanson, and she has held that position since 2007.


Excerpts from The “Justice” blog authored by an anonymous group of concerned citizens.
The Attorney General’s Office has been receiving documentation concerning the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX case for over 5 years and has refused to investigate or take any action in the face of serious allegations, and evidence, showing corruption in local government and law enforcement. However, when opposing President Trump’s immigrant order, Lori Swanson said “It does not pass constitutional muster, is inconsistent with our history as a nation, and undermines our national security.” The same can be said for Dakota County; yet instead of taking a public stance on a very real concern that affects not only the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX family but the entire state of Minnesota, and possibly tens of thousands of families victimized by an out of control court system, Swanson remains silent. Now is a time for leadership, not silence.

Another article written by Michael Volpe on indicates that other MN citizens have encountered the same type of cover-up by the MN Attorney General’s Office.
Excerpts Below:
The tact does not surprise John Hentges, another parent battling court officials on behalf of his children and suffering from disingenuous actions by the court, who told CDN that rather than representing the people of Minnesota the office covers up and represents the corrupt public officials.

“I reported the corruption to her (Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General) and to the governor and to the Minnesota Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Hentges.

Hentges said he spent time in jail for failure to pay child support for a bill which had already been paid in another state and his trials in the Minnesota Justice System opened his eyes.

“I found several other things they were doing in the criminal justice system.” Hentges said. “I firmly believe that nearly every single case in the 1st Judicial District is fixed in one way or another.”

 

BACK FROM THE BIG HOUSE

So. . . there’s 120 days of my life that I’ll never get back!

Most of you know that my trial was scheduled from September 26th-September 29th, 2016.

The trial went forward despite my arguments regarding witness tampering and obstruction of justice due to illegal withholding of a portion of my evidence. Also, the evidence I did receive was not disclosed in time to afford me the opportunity to make beneficial use of it. (Received on September 1st and trial was scheduled for September 26th).

Image courtesy of suphakit73 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Judge Asphaug also demonstrated prejudicial judicial conduct by granting the State’s motion to have substantial exonerating evidence not introduced in the trial.

I did not have a settlement conference and was offered a plea deal on the first day of my trial. As I’ve said numerous times before, the goal was always to have me plead guilty or be found guilty without access to all of my evidence. After I declined the plea deal, the attitude of the prosecutor and the judge changed significantly and became quite hostile. Here’s the thing, a statement must be free and voluntary, not extracted by any sorts of threats or promises, however slight. Judge Asphaug indicated that if I lost by having a jury trial, she would have the ability to impose a harsh sentence which is exactly what happened. Plea bargaining extorts guilty pleas and the trial tax is just another way to tilt the playing field in favor of the state.

Below is an excerpt from Trial Tax And Plea Bargaining   BY  

“There’s no law written saying that exercising your right to a jury trial and losing will cost you more. There’s this euphemism in legal land called a “trial tax.”  If you exercise your constitutional right to a trial and lose, you typically get reamed even harder than if you took a plea deal.
Why? The incredible amount of unnecessary and unjust laws you could break bog down the courts. Rather than give every defendant his day in court, plea deals are offered. Courts use the “trial tax” as an excuse to discourage jury trials.  Judges, prosecutors, and court staff perceive this fundamental right of our American republic as an inconvenience and intimidate the accused into taking deals struck in back rooms.
Remember this next time it is presumed that our courts and laws are fair: Court personnel consider due process a punishable offense.”

Also, I was originally charged with two felony counts and four additional charges were added. This dirty trick is called charge stacking. Read more about this tactic below:

Prosecutors, Charge Stacking, and Plea Deals 

by  

As Attorney Michelle MacDonald once told me, “This is a process of torture where heavier and heavier weights are placed on the chest of the defendant until they either suffocate or confess.”

I did not suffocate nor did I confess to criminal behavior that did not exist.

Below are my special conditions of probation:

psipsi

Below are two additional conditions that were not in the community corrections document.

roa

roa0002It’s clear that this was a malicious prosecution and that I was deprived of the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge. This was also a manipulation of public opinion by false media reports and retaliation for putting the system on trial.

Stay tuned for further updates.

Wave Of A Gavel

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is sentenced in domestic case

by Michael VolpeSep 23, 2016

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been sentenced to six years’ probation plus one hundred and eight days in jail for her role in her two daughters’ running away.

HASTINGS, Minnesota, September 23, 2016- Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been sentenced to six years’ probation and an extra one hundred and eight days in jail for her role in her two daughters’ running away.

Grazzini-Rucki was to serve thirty days immediately and fifteen days each of the next six years on the anniversary of the date authorities found her two daughters, November 17. However, Grazzini-Rucki chose to serve the sentence all at once, a total of as long as 233 days, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Judge Asphaug handed down the sentence even though the prosecutor, Kathryn Keena, asked for only the probation and no jail time. Keena said she was fulfilling a promise made to Grazzini-Rucki’s daughter, Samantha, one of the two daughters who ran away.

Judge Asphaug imposed the unusual sentence after disallowing nearly all of the evidence Grazzini-Rucki intended to use in support of her affirmative defense. Grazzini-Rucki argued that she hid her daughters to protect them from an unsafe environment.

The criminal record of Grazzini-Rucki’s ex-husband, David Rucki including a bar fight, road rage incident, numerous incidents of stalking and numerous violations of orders for protection, were all disallowed.

Child Protection reports, including one made by Nico Rucki in which he claimed his father held a gun to his head, were also disallowed.

Judge Asphaug’s chambers directed all calls to Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, who did not respond to an email for comment.

David Rucki made a victim impact statement which included the following statement:

“She is not the same woman I married twenty-five years ago. Sandy, that woman, is gone. She doesn’t realize how blessed she is. She cannot comprehend the pain and trauma on her children. We need to free Sandra from her distorted reality. How Sandy thought alienation of the family was a good plan? Nico was forced by Sandy to write false statement on Facebook. They were not the truth they were his mother’s words.”

Rucki thanked several people including the Lakeville Police Department, his sister Tammi and Brandon Stahl of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The Lakeville Police Department has declined all comments on the case directing all questions to the Dakota County Prosecutor’s Office which did not respond to several CDN emails for comment. An email to David Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliott, was also left unreturned.

Stahl wrote an explosive story on the case in April 2015 when Dale Nathan first revealed that he was in the care of Grazzini-Rucki on April 19, 2013. Nathan would repeat this story several times including on ABC’s 20/20. Stahl wrote the story on the two-year anniversary of the girls’ disappearance. Curiously, however, Stahl confirmed to CDN that this was the first story he’d written on the case.

CDN learned that a third party approached Stahl in January of 2015 asking that he write about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki but Stahl declined saying the presence of Nathan posed a problem since he was a disbarred lawyer at the time. Stahl declined to comment when CDN asked why Nathan’s presence was no longer an issue.

Stahl has also declined to provide details of David Rucki’s voluminous criminal and violent history. Stahl also declined to write about Samantha Rucki’s June 30, 2016 police interview when CDN provided it to him.

In that interview Samantha Rucki said she was pressured into recanting by her father, running away was her idea, and she reiterated her father was an abuser .

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/sandra-grazzini-rucki-sentenced-71420/#jtxfFIM17yZU85bi.99