The Gorilla in Dakota County Judicial Center: Grazzini-Rucki

“She’s (Dede) part of the press, she has a blog that writes about court issues and a whole lot of other issues but she also writes about her case and it’s her way of getting information out as to what took place in that courtroom and what the judge did and what was going on and educating people about the true nature of courts. Well, the judges don’t like that so they were in full compliance with a harassment restraining order put on her.” - Tim Kinley, Speechless Minnesota

When judges take the law into their own hands, and issue rulings based on their own will, and without legal justification, they abuse their authority and compromise the entire justice system. This we have seen happen over and over again in the family court and criminal case involving Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and co-defendant in the criminal trial, Dede Evavold.  

Respected Professor Emeritus of Law, Robert Martineau created a metaphor called “the gorilla rule” to describe situations where a court makes orders that are not based on the motion of either party but are a result of a judge doing what he wants. ** Robert J. Martineau, Considering New Issues on Appeal: The General Rule and the Gorilla Rule, 40 Vand. L. Rev. 1023 (1987) ** The “gorilla rule” holds that courts should not make such decisions, except when they do. Prof. Martineau says this is likely to happen because the 800-lb gorilla may sit wherever it wants. In plain words, the gorilla sits wherever it wants because it is both a powerful and intimidating animal. Gorillas are generally not dangerous to humans but when they do attack, it can be lethal. When a gorilla attacks, the best chances of survival are greater if you crouch down and make yourself small, passive. Just like the gorilla, the courts hold a similar power and position of authority that is just as intimidating. The courts must be careful on how they exercise their power because corruption grows when abuse is enabled or goes unchecked. 

 In yet another bizarre twist, the criminal case of Dede Evavold has recently been “reopened” in Dakota County. The re-opening of a criminal case is a rare occurrence -- even more so 3 years after conviction.

Scant details are offered on this development because the gorilla is hiding in the jungle - the public record has now been sealed on a criminal case where video coverage was once allowed, and that has been covered by media outlets nationwide. The last public record available in MNCIS is a payment made by Evavold on 8/6/2019; before that a collection notice from November 2018. In order for this case to reopened, the Dakota County Prosecutor’s Officer had to file a motion petitioning the court to reopen the criminal case. The next step would have been to hold a hearing for the court (the original judge presiding over the criminal matter, Karen Asphaug would also decide on the reopening) to review the merits of the State’s motion, and give Evavold a chance to respond. The State would have to prove their is new and compelling evidence to reopen the case, and that it is in the best interests of justice to do so. There would also have to be a statutory or legal authority to reopen the case. Once the case is reopened the original judgement would be vacated, and a new criminal trial would be granted, and result in new sentencing. It is unclear if Judge Asphaug did, in fact, vacate Evavold’s 2016 felony conviction for parental deprivation of rights, and or if a new criminal trial has been scheduled. 

Judge Karen Asphaug, Dakota County

A criminal case may be re-opened as the result of an appeal, if the court overturned a conviction, but that is not the case in this matter. A criminal case may also be re-opened if the defendant feels they have enough evidence to warrant a new trial or exonerate them of charges, also not the case in this matter. There are also statutory limits that apply to when a case may be reopened and under what circumstances. Extensive research has not come across any similar criminal case to Evavold’s, and certainly not one being reopened as a result of secret proceedings held 3 years after conviction.

Certainly this new development should be of interest to the media outlets who have covered the Grazzini-Rucki case.. this is a highly unusual legal move and sets a precedent in Dakota County that will impact criminal cases across Minnesota. This is a situation where an individual convicted of a crime, and having served time in jail and now complying with probation, is having her case reopened after 3 years…and there is no clear statute or legal authority giving the Prosecutor’s office or district court aka Judge Asphaug any authority to do so.

A defendant can’t be charged for the same crime twice. . The Constitution protects against “double jeopardy”. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . . " Wex - Double Jeopardy

Additionally, Minnesota Courts must follow the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure “These rules are intended to provide a just determination of criminal proceedings, and ensure a simple and fair procedure that eliminates unjustified expense and delay..” Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.02 The Prosecutor’s Office motioning the Court to re-open a case 3 years after conviction in which the defendant (Evavold) has spent significant time in jail related to charges, paid hefty financial penalties, and been subjected to conditions of probation is not only unfair but could be considered a form of malicious prosecution. -- Especially if the complaint filed by the State relates to Evavold’s activities as a blogger or whistle blower; it would suggest the State is punishing her for sharing information and views that the State does not agree with or for addressing a grievance with the government (which are both, by the way, protected forms of speech under the First Amendment).

Further, re-opening Evavold’s criminal case creates extraordinary expense (at tax payer’s cost) and delay - especially when other legal remedies are available to solve the issue. Re-opening Evavold’s case also does not serve “the interests of justice” because she has complied with her sentence, and is serving the conditions given to her. This creates an additional penalty against Evavold, which is double jeopardy.

HOW can Dakota County get away with this? Answer, except when they do: the judges in the Evavold criminal case are acting as the gorilla in the courtroom!

Judges Involved the Evavold Criminal Case:

- Karen Asphaug

-David L. Knutson

-Philip Kanning

- Kathleen Gearin

-Minnesota Court of Appeals

More Info:

 Evavold Released

 Battle Over Blogger’s Freedom of Speech Continues: Emergency Hearing Feb 27th on Evavold HRO

 Lion News: Poor Dede Reports Corrupt Dakota Co. Attorney Backstrom's Trial-By-Ambush To FBI?

David Rucki's Assault on the 1st Amendment

Background: 

 

Dede Evavold was convicted in September 2016 of six felony counts of deprivation of custody after assisting two runaway teen sisters, Samantha and Gianna Rucki, find shelter on a therapeutic horse ranch where they remained in hiding for two years. The sisters ran away amid divorce proceedings involving their mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and their father, David Rucki. Sandra is a friend of Dede Evavold. As a result of Sandra’s experience with family court, both have worked to raise awareness of failures in the family court system and been a public voice for reform, and better protection for victims of domestic violence and their children. 

 

The Dakota County family court, presided by Judge David Knutson, got involved in the case when divorce proceedings were initiated in 2006. Sandra fought to keep her children safe from domestic abuse experienced during her 20 year marriage to Rucki. But instead of protecting the children, the family court and it’s professionals sought to “de-program” the children and reunite them with their allegedly abusive father. Samantha and Gianna Rucki told professionals in the family court system about the abuse, including Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich who was appointed to represent their best interests, but were ignored. Court records indicate Judge Knutson, GAL Julie Friedrich, and the court appointed therapists Dr. Paul Reitman and Dr. James Gilbertson were all aware that the children raised allegations of physical, mental and sexual abuse when making a recommendation for “de-programming” and “reunification” for all five Rucki children. De-programming is a controversial therapy that involves erasing or altering specific memories so children can be “programmed”; in this case the children would be coached to recant abuse allegations and programmed to accept their father. 

Dakota County Judge David Knutson

 Before running away, Samantha Rucki created an audio testimony where she recalled incidents of abuse, raised concern with how she was treated by the court and it’s therapists, and stated that she did not need to be de-programmed. Fearing for their safety, Samantha and Gianna ran away in April 2013, on the day the court awarded temporary custody to a paternal aunt with the intention of this being a step closer to father gaining custody. Rucki denies all abuse allegations and claims Sandra is just a vengeful ex who is making up these allegations.

In November 2015, Samantha and Gianna were discovered living on a therapeutic horse ranch; when police arrived both girls again spoke up about their father’s abuse and threatened to run away again if returned to his care. Does Police Report Found Exonerate Sandra Grazzini-Rucki?

The sisters were also able to gain an attorney to voice their wishes in the upcoming Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) hearing. Despite their efforts, and even with a Dakota County social worker testifying that she believed the abuse did occur, Rucki was given custody of S & G. Social Worker Recommends Protective Care

Both girls were shipped out of state to reunification therapy, a rural location in the mountains was chosen so if they attempted to run, they would not be able to get far. The Rucki children would never again see their mother. 

Criminal charges were filed against both mother, Sandra and Dede. In July 2016, Sandra was convicted of six counts of felony deprivation; she executed her sentence and has lawfully served all of her time. Dede was convicted in September 2016 and is currently on probation.

Evavold has maintained a blog called “Red Herring Alert” that reported on current events, politics and covered her experiences in the legal system. As a result of reporting, David Rucki (through his attorney Lisa Elliott) claimed that Evavold was “harassing him” and successfully filed motions in Dakota County that resulted in the blog being removed from the internet.

Rucki is also filing civil lawsuits, seeking millions of dollars, for the pain and suffering he claims he experienced when deprived of S & G. The lawsuits have been filed against Sandra, Dede, the couple that cared for the girls on the therapeutic ranch (Doug and Gina Dahlen) and filed against the pastor of the church attended by the Dahlens.

This case is far from over…