Conspirators Leading All the Way to the Supreme Court


An appeal is when you ask one court to show its contempt for another court. It just ain’t gonna happen folks! They are simply all in cahoots in this fraud.

We are on our own.  The agencies and elected officials that should be jumping to our defense are sitting idly by watching the deterioration of the very core of our nation.  It occurs to me that when the law enforcement and judicial systems break down to this extent, we are witnessing government sanctioned anarchy. ~Marti Oakley



First Amendment Court Case #19AV-CR-17-16709

Contrary to the false tweets put out by Michael Brodkorb, I did have my pre-trial hearing for my false harassment restraining order (HRO) violation. This was not a hearing related to additional criminal charges and in fact, I still have not received documentation regarding these “new charges”. Brodkorb always seems to have the inside scoop as to what’s going down before I’m ever notified.  Hmmmm……


Michael Brodkorb: “At the hearing on December 13, 2017, Elliott said that Evavold’s post published the private address of the Rucki family on a platform with a “dangerous” audience. Evavold did not respond to Elliott’s claims in court, but Judge Kanning said he would grant the motion filed by Elliott.”
Judge Asphaug presided over yesterday’s hearing and indicated that the motion hearing to vacate the harassment restraining order will take place prior to any further hearings. This is the same judge that signed the ex-parte harassment restraining order against me for my crime of referencing the petitioner    on this blog and presided over our “Parental Deprivation” cases.
Click to view: Supreme Court Petition
BTW, I’ve NEVER had an HRO against me, but petitioner has had several filed against him as well as an endless stream of police reports, CPS reports, letters, and orders for protection.
Below are examples of petitioner’s patterns of behavior that he is empowered to continue due to the cover-up by law enforcement, attorneys and judges.



(Double click to zoom)






The above case was in front of  none other than Judge Karen Asphaug and prosecuted by Elliot Knetsch who is now prosecuting me.  A preliminary hearing was held on December 31, 2009 and as a result of the hearing, a trial was scheduled for February 8, 2010. On the eve of the trial, the defense filed a motion to dismiss for “lack of probable cause.” That motion was granted without a hearing by Judge Asphaug and the case was thrown out.

Image result for save the date

My free speech hearing is scheduled for March 14th at the Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley.


 Dakota County Western Service Center
Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley, MN.14955 Galaxie Ave. West
Apple Valley, MN 55124




Fallout from 20/20’s Fake Broadcast “Footprints in the Snow”

Image may contain: 9 people, people smiling, text
The Women’s Coalition

Watch 20/20 Tomorrow! Features Protective Mom Sandra’s Case
Women’s Coalition Communications Director Damon Dumas Interviewed
Dear MSM Videos Will Be Aired; SHARE Post

UPDATE: Boycott ABC for Biased Reporting!

20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas flew to Santa Monica to interview Damon Dumas. Damon was expecting to speak as The Women’s Coalition Communications Director, and as such would be letting the public know about how Sandra’s case is just one of millions around the world in which children are being taken away from women and given to fathers, most of whom are abusive. However, Damon was just asked about his own case and attempted to fit in the larger picture.

The decision was made that it would be best coming from Damon since he is harder to discredit and there had been reports that Vargas had made Sandra look like a liar/alienator in her prison interview. However, after The Women’s Coalition Director Cindy Dumas made the producer, Sean Dooley, aware of that and refused to do an interview because of it, he promised to look at all of Sandra’s documents to help confirm that she is not a liar, which he did.

Cindy did interview at length over the phone, provided them with facts and research and, most importantly, the Dear MSM videos showing this is a women’s civil rights crisis. Parts of the videos will be aired, however it is not known which ones. Thanks to all who participated and for those who did not, you can still send a 2 to 3 minute video to help the cause and for other journalists to see. See instructions on the Dear MSM page:

The producer appears to want to genuinely portray the protective mothers’ side of the story. We shall see…. He was asked to give The Women’s Coalition acknowledgement for Damon’s interview and for the videos so the public would become aware of our organization. If you think he does a good job on this segment, you can thank him at: The Women’s Coalition will post the segment as soon as it is archived.

20/20 PROMO:
Timeline: How Parents’ Bitter Divorce and Custody Battle Led to the Disappearance of Two Sisters…/timeline-parents-bitter-divo…/story…

Living in Lakeville, Minnesota, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki appeared to be doting and loving parents to their five children, Nico, Samantha, Gianna, Nia and Gino.

But despite the happy moments their home videos captured, Sandra said she suffered years of emotional and physical abuse at David’s hand. She also claims he abused the children.

“We’d lock ourselves in the bedroom because we’re scared. We just didn’t know how his behavior was going to be from one day to the next,” Sandra, 50, told ABC News’ “20/20.”

By 2011, Sandra said she had enough and filed for divorce. But what ensued was a bitter he-said, she-said dispute with their five children at the center.

Two years later, a court-appointed psychologist determined that Sandra had been engaging in parental alienation, manipulating her children into fearing their father. Custody of the five children was temporarily transferred from Sandra to a relative. However, the two oldest daughters, Samantha, now 17, and Gianna, now 16, who were often vocal about their claim that their father was abusive, ran away and disappeared. The sisters were eventually found in 2015.

Today, Sandra is awaiting trial for felony charges of deprivation of parental rights, while David is attempting to move forward with his children. Sandra remains steadfast that she has only ever wanted to protect her children, and David denies he was ever abusive to Sandra and their kids.

See a timeline of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki’s dispute below:

From the Promo:
Timeline: How Parents’ Bitter Divorce and Custody Battle Led to the Disappearance of Two Sisters…/timeline-parents-bitter-divo…/story…

[Pictured: Damon Dumas (previously Moelter) at the interview (top right); Sandra Rucki (bottom right)]

Image may contain: 9 people, people smiling, text

—–Original Message—–
From: Rachel Alintoff <>
To: channing.dungey <>
Cc: thewomenscoalitionpac <>; patrice <>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 8:17 am
Subject: Boycotting ABC

Dear President Dungey,

I am with The Women’s Coalition and am writing to let you know that we will be boycotting ABC until you retract Friday night’s episode “Footprints in the Snow”, issue an apology to Sandra Rucki, Cindy Dumas and women around the world who have been implicated.

As a domestic violence survivor myself and a protective mother of an autistic 6 year old who was illegally ripped from me by a corrupt judge in NJ, I found your segment to be disturbingly bias against women and dangerous to the public’s perception of the reality of what is really happened.   The fact that 20/20 decided to purposely omit evidence showing abuse that was provided to you and the reporters was deliberate manipulation of the truth.

The Women’s Coalition has been documenting this crisis on social media and Youtube and with the UN and Women’s Commissions.  We have a huge following and a strong social media presence.

We hope you correct this episode and do a follow-up showing the additional evidence of abuse.  As it stands right now, you have turned women, mothers and children off to your show by your gross misrepresentation and we have instructed all of our supporters to never to grant an exclusive or any type of interview to ABC and especially not to 20/20

I personally have an exclusive story coming out on one of the big networks in the next few weeks.  I will make sure that when my story becomes of further public interest that I will not speak to any reporters from ABC news.  You have lost the trust of abused mothers and children everywhere.

It is a travesty to harm women and children the way your show did.   You should be greatly ashamed.

Thank you for your time,

Rachel Alintoff

The short clip below is footage of 20/20 producers Beth Mullen and Sean Dooley reviewing documents and watching video of the Civil Rights Case Against Judge David Knutson at Attorney Michelle MacDonald’s office.

Lea Dannewitz discusses the judges court order to remove her blog Carver County Corruption from the internet. She did not remove it in 2014, but did in 2016. Facing potential civil litigation in Rucki case, owner deletes blog

What’s interesting is that any Carver County Corruption links that are still out there go directly to Michael Brodkorb’s Missing in Minnesota fake news blog.  Check it out → 3/14/2013 post from the blog Carver County Corruption

I received a similar letter in an attempt to intimidate me into deleting this blog and to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra Grazzini-Ruckci’s trial. I currently have numerous charges against me for exercising my first amendment right to free speech on this blog. Criminalizing noncriminal behavior while ignoring true crirme is the modus operandi in Dakota County.

Watch video in its entirety below




But She Looks So Sweet

20/20 Denial of Substantiating Documents in the Grazzini-Rucki Case

MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Minnesota Supreme Court

Group photo of the seven members of the Minnesota Supreme Court

The Minnesota Supreme Court is, in effect, the final arbiter of the constitutional rights of the people of the state of Minnesota. Supreme Court decisions often serve as precedent for future cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court reviews petitions in approximately 800 cases a year and accepts review in about 1 in 8 cases. These cases can come from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and Board of Judicial Standards. Election contests and appeals for first-degree murder cases are automatically appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is responsible for the regulation of the practice of law and for judicial and lawyer discipline. Additionally, as the highest court in Minnesota, it promulgates rules of practice and procedure for the legal system in the state.

Let’s see how much the Supreme Court cares about the constitutional rights of MN citizens. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that my case and companion case won’t be accepted for review. And if it is accepted, the decision of the lower courts will be affirmed.

 (Double click to zoom)




Coming After Us Six Ways from Sunday

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Logo | Spivak ... Founders_Finger_Gulag

Re: Andy Ostrowski’s false psych hold and a most curious comment

Subject: Re: Andy Ostrowski — recent comment on post
Date: Oct 9, 2017 10:49 AM
JoAnne is absolutely correct in her posts.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, confirms the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution. In order for any involuntary incarceration under the 5th and 14th Amendments DUE PROCESS must be strictly observed.  All that this requires is NOTICE AND HEARING.  There is a District Court case in Wisconsin that suggests that in this regard Form TRUMPS Substance, and a totally biased finder of fact still meets the criteria.  However, this was not the situation!
An ex-parte commitment order to be enforced by Police Act is so wrong that it is a massive stretch for any policeman participating to not be legally and criminally culpable for any action on his part that interferes with the civil rights of a victim – in this case Andy.   (The fact that Andy may have given his key to someone is irrelevant – and the fact that he might have on social media made statements that were offensive to someone are not grounds for summary incarceration.  THIS IS NOT ALLOWABLE under the Constitution and ANY LAW THAT IS or is interpreted to deny basic DUE PROCESS is void.   A middle school student is required to know this fact – to require a well paid judge/lawyer/policeman to be aware of such a proposition is equally appropriate.
I agree with JoAnne — ANDY’s incarceration was WRONGFUL, and criminal.    All the miscreants involved ought to be charged with KIDNAPPING, tried and sent to jail!   The Gulag cannot be tolerated in America.
Ken Ditkowsky
 Continue Reading:

Regulating Rights

9/11 Gave Us The Police State With The “Patriot” Act, After Vegas Get Ready For “USA Liberty” Act

By Rachel Blevins

After 9/11, the United States government preyed on the fear felt by many Americans to justify the passage of the USA Patriot Act—a law that was supposed to prevent future terrorist attacks. Now, after the Las Vegas shooting, the government has another proposed law ready to go, and just as with the Patriot Act, it also infringes on Americans’ liberties, and does very little for their security.

The USA Liberty Act is the latest trendy name for a law that would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017. According to the House Judiciary Committee, the act would preserve “the core purpose of Section 702: the collection of electronic communications by non-U.S. persons for use in our nation’s defense.”

However, it should be noted that while the purpose of FISA was reportedly only to allow surveillance on the communications of foreign targets who were suspected terrorists, it has been used to spy on the communications of innocent Americans—despite the practice being ruled illegal—and any reauthorization of the law will only allow the practice to continue under the guise of “preventing terrorism.”

The USA Liberty Act claims that it will “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database. Then when they do have that purpose established, they will be required to “obtain a court order based on probable cause to look at the content of communications, except when lives or safety are threatened, or a previous probable cause-based court order or warrant has been granted.”

Continue Reading: