Judge Halbrooks: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Too Poor For Court Costs But Can Pay Child Support by Michael Volpe

https://wall.alphacoders.com

"Months after a Minnesota Appeal’s Court Judge ruled that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was capable of paying nearly $1,000 per month in child support, the same judge ruled that paying several hundred dollars in her ex-husband’s court costs would be too burdensome...

David Rucki was granted child support even though he already received 100% of a multi-million-dollar estate which included numerous homes, classic cars, and the entirety of a thriving trucking business.


Rucki was also granted sole custody of the children and Grazzini-Rucki has not been allowed to see her children since early 2013; the divorce decision, handed down by Judge David Knutson, is one of the most one sided in the history of divorces.

Emails to Flaskamps-Halbrooks and Beau Berentson, public affairs officer for the Minnesota courts, were left unreturned."

Judge Halbrooks: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Too Poor For Court Costs But Can Pay Child Support by Michael Volpe: https://ppjg.me/2017/12/08/judge-halbrooks-sandra-grazzini-rucki-too-poor-for-court-costs-but-can-pay-child-support

SEEKING JUSTICE - Dede Evavold Soldiers On

Posted 4/19/2018 on "Red Herring Alert" blog by Dede Evavold: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com/2018/04/19/seeking-justice/

"Dakota County has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the power entrusted to them and have managed to shield themselves from any accountability..."

 

Supporters of judicial integrity attended the April 17th Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee to request legislative intervention in our wrongful prosecution cases.

These cases involve prosecution for ideological beliefs about the court system, obstruction of justice due to illegal withholding/suppression of evidence, numerous due process violations, witness tampering, serial prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, media interference of investigations and trials, violation of rules of the criminal court, significant upward departures in sentencing and false imprisonment of defendants as well as one of the attorneys representing a defendant.



Individuals have been denied access to justice and the basic right to a fair and impartial trial and the public officials have been and are continuing to act with impunity. Recently, I was jailed for information on this blog regarding these cases.

We have attempted to seek remedy and redress from the MN Court of Appeals, the MN Supreme Court, the FBI, the Attorney General, the Board of Judicial Standards, the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Law Enforcement, Dakota County Commissioners, and the First Judicial District Administrator and Chief Judge, to no avail.

I am not at liberty to discuss the background on the case as I have been gagged by the judges involved and risk further incarceration for revealing details of this high profile case. What this amounts to is a weaponization of the legal system to bully and suppress my first amendment rights.

Here’s what I can say,  the Assistant Dakota County Attorney engaged in malicious and retaliatory prosecution by unrealistically overcharging defendants and allowing wrongful convictions when she knew the affirmative defense negated any criminal liability. The judge erroneously allowed evidence to be illegally withheld from defendants and excluded evidence critical to the affirmative defense, thereby making the affirmative defense ineffective. Evidentiary rules cannot prevent a defendant from presenting his defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S.284 (1972).

The courts are endowed with an abundance of power and yet have limited checks and balances. Dakota County has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the power entrusted to them and have managed to shield themselves from any accountability.

Cover of the first printing of the Minnesota Constitution, 1857. 

What we requested from the legislators:  
       
The MN Constitution provides numerous actions that the Legislature can take regarding the Judiciary:

ARTICLE VI, Sec. 9. The legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges and for the extension of the term of any judge who becomes eligible for retirement within three years after expiration of the term for which he is selected. The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

ARTICLE VIII, Section 1. The house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment through a concurrence of a majority of all its members. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that purpose, senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present.
Sec. 2. Officers subject to impeachment; grounds; judgment. The governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general and the judges of the supreme court, court of appeals and district courts may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes and misdemeanors; but judgment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state. The party convicted shall also be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.
 
Sec. 5. Removal of inferior officers.

The legislature of this state may provide for the removal of inferior officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties. 

The Legislature appropriates significant tax payer funding to the courts with no oversight of how these tax payer dollars are being spent. Clearly, Dakota County has not demonstrated good stewardship of public funds in these cases as millions of dollars have been spent on carrying out personal vendettas.

At my sentencing hearing, (and speaking on behalf of the state) Assistant County Attorney Keena states,“As to the sentence that the State believes the defendant should receive in this case, it’s the State’s position that Ms. Evavold should be treated the same and receive the same sentence that xxxxxx  received in her case. And why she remained silent and her rationale for doing so I think is more reprehensible than actions taken by xxxxxx. This defendant did it purposely for her ideological beliefs about the family court system and her complete disregard for the family court system.”



We are asking for a special counsel investigation into these cases as the Legislature has the power, authority, and duty to investigate any government entity when there is clear evidence of misconduct. This case is of great public interest and must be reviewed to alleviate the adverse administration of justice.


Below are the members that received the information with phone numbers and emails listed. Give them a call or email them to hold them accountable for investigating these cases and take appropriate action against those that are guilty of corrupt conduct in office.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Commentary on Grazzini-Rucki Case, Bail

 Originally Posted 12/11/2015...Removed from "Red Herring Alert" after David Rucki says the blog "harasses" him. Blog owner Dede Evavold subject of legal retaliation, jail removes hundreds of posts under duress.

 

 

A hearing was held on 12-7-15 for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. Pre-trial is scheduled for 2-24-16 with a jury trial scheduled for the week of 3-07-16. Sandra waived her right to a speedy trial.

Sandra was initially charged with 3 felony counts of deprivation of parental rights. Three additional charges were added after the discovery of her daughters Samantha and Gianna in November 2015. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki now faces six felony counts of deprivation of parental rights.

The county is seeking an aggravated sentence against her, saying the girls’ father has been caused “particular cruelty” for being deprived of the girls for two years. Assistant Dakota County Attorney Kathryn Keena wrote in a notice to the court filed last week that David Rucki has “suffered extreme emotional pain beyond what is normal for this crime.”

Doesn’t this whole case seem to be “beyond what is normal” and the crime  pinned on the wrong parent? The “particular cruelty” would seem to be what the Rucki children and Sandra have suffered due to the abuse, not only by David Rucki, but by all the court players as well. The million dollar bail (now reduced to half a million) and the post bond conditions appear disproportionate to the alleged conduct of protecting children from violence.  

 “The sisters ran from their home while their parents were in the midst of a bitter custody dispute over their five children. The girls had accused their father of abusing them, but a court-appointed psychologist concluded that Grazzini-Rucki had turned her children against their father. A Dakota County judge granted the father full custody of his children in November 2013, saying there was no credible evidence that they were abused.” Brandon Stahl ~ StarTribune

The reason given for the excessive bail amount was due to the determination that Grazzini-Rucki presents a significant flight risk. Prosecutor Phil Prokopowicz acknowledged that the bail amount was large, given the charges, but argued that it took nine weeks for federal authorities to find Grazzini-Rucki, that she has ID cards in two states, and that she uses prepaid cellphones to avoid being tracked.

What’s interesting is that there is no evidence to back up the claims of a flight risk. The charges and warrant for Grazzini-Rucki’s arrest were filed in August 2015 under seal because of police fears that she would go into hiding. The warrant was mysteriously leaked and then taken off the Dakota Co. website a few days later. The display of records was blamed on a “glitch”.  I’m wondering if you can you still be considered a fugitive if you didn’t know about your warrant? Sandra is a flight attendant and was living with coworkers in Florida at the time.

With regard to the ID cards in 2 states, Sandra is listed as CONAX status which means that she once possessed a driver’s license in the state of MN, but it’s no longer valid. Driver’s licenses must be turned in before  a new one can be obtained in another state. The final argument by the prosecutor: “she uses prepaid cellphones to avoid being tracked” is also an invalid concern. If you have bad credit, (due to court ordered impoverishment), you’ll typically need to pay a higher deposit or opt for a month-by-month, pre-paid phone plan.’

Bail is supposed to do two things. One: make sure that someone comes back to court for their trial. Two: protect public safety. We know she’s not a threat to public safety and she’s dutifully attended court hearings in the past. All money bail does is keep those with insufficient funds locked up. If she doesn’t appear for a court date, the judge may order the bail be forfeited, meaning that she would lose her right to get the bail back at the end of the case. Do you really think Sandra would flee? She also has bond conditions that ensure she would appear for court.

Apparently, MN needs to be reminded of the eighth amendment ~ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. As the United States Supreme Court said in Stack v. Boyle:

“This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.. . . Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.”

Faced with the prospect of being incarcerated until trial, most people would  accept a plea deal. Ms. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki however, is too smart to fall for the tricks of prosecutors and judges. She waived her right to a speedy trial so her attorney  can fully prepare and present evidence that will reveal the facts and demonstrate the joint and several liability of the failure to protect this family!