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…

Grazzini-Rucki Case: Is the Public Getting the Truth or Just a Controlled Narrative?

“The disempowered want change; those in power want predictability and consistency. The more you can guarantee predictability and consistency to those in power, the more those in power will reward you.

Those who report the news and shape public narratives are of particular interest to US oligarchs, who bought up the old media long ago and are doing everything in their power to secure influence over the new media as well...Because whoever controls the narrative controls the world.” - Caitlin Johnstone, “How the Media Controls the Narrative that Controls the World”: https://www.sott.net/article/387268-How-the-media-controls-the-narrative-that-controls-the-world 

Media coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case has become just as controversial as the case itself. Allegations of domestic abuse, the family court covering up abuse and various forms of government corruption are all a part of this case...yet are being ignored in the mainstream news and commentary covering the case. 

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has not only spoken out about the injustices she experienced but has provided a large volume of evidence to support her claims, including court records, social service records, police reports, investigative reports, witness statements and more. It is due to the brave efforts of those willing to look deeper into the Grazzini-Rucki case – independent reporters, researchers, bloggers and silent whistle blowers – that the facts have finally been revealed, and documentation made available to the public. The facts support a startling truth – that Sandra and the five Rucki children have suffered horribly, and had their lives destroyed, first by domestic violence and then by a court and legal system that has acted in complicity with an identified perpetrator of their abuse.

Mainstream media has reported on the Grazzini-Rucki case on a very limited scope, omitting a large body information and parroting a single narrative – that Sandra is a vengeful ex-wife who hid her children as a way to spite a sympathetic ex-husband, David Rucki. The media is not talking about Rucki's abuse of Sandra and the children, and his lifelong history of violence. The testimony of the children, and their abuse allegations, and other reports substantiating abuse also suppressed. Mainstream media is not talking about the illegal and unethical actions of Minnesota's court and legal system in this case, that the vast body of evidence suggests that corruption could be occurring. Mainstream media has filtered the facts of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and suppressed information that does not support the “official narrative” they are pushing onto an impressionable public. Without hard evidence to support assertions, mainstream media uses a “because we said so” bravado to report under false pretenses.

A disturbing pattern has emerged suggesting efforts are being made to control information released to the public about the Grazzini-Rucki case:

· On April 8, 2016, ABC “20/20” featured an episode called “Footprints in the Snow” about sisters, Samantha and Gianna Rucki, who ran away during a custody dispute in April 2013; allegations of abuse were raised by both girls and ignored by the family court who sought to reunite them with the father, David Rucki, they feared. ABC has been accused of suppressing evidence of abuse in it's coverage of the Grazzini-Rucki case. Documentation has been leaked that shows that ABC had possession of evidence that was not included in its reporting on the case. Red Herring Alert blog both reported on, and provided evidence, that ABC 20/20 was given extension documentation about the Grazzini-Rucki case, and omitted crucial facts in telling the story. Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse?  and Footprints in the Snow or Wild Goose Chase? Did ABC 20/20 Edit Audio Recordings to Suppress Evidence of Abuse in the Grazzini-Rucki Case? Pt. 1 

· Two blogs – Red Herring Alert and Carver County Corruption - both offering news and commentary, and sharing documentation, about the Grazzini-Rucki case have been removed from the internet after threats of legal action from David Rucki, and the attorneys representing him.David Rucki claims indigence, hires two private lawyers

· The owner of the Red Herring Alert blog, Dede Evavold, has not only been threatened with civil lawsuit for Rucki as a result of reporting on the case but has also been jailed for posting articles and fought her right to report on the case all the way up to Minnesota's appellate court. The reason why Red Herring Alert cannot be accessed is because Rucki finally succeeded in removing the blog from the internet, with the assistance of the Dakota County court who has acted in violation to Evavold's right to free speech, and right to petition the government for redress of grievances. First Amendment 

· In June 2016, the owner of the Carver County Corruption (CCC) blog was threatened with a civil lawsuit by an attorney representing David Rucki and subsequently removed the blog from the internet. The web address of the CCC blog has been high jacked by Rucki's personal blogger, who now uses the name and address of CCC to trick anyone wanting to read another perspective on the case to visit his blog, where he spreads disinfo on the case.

· Immediately following the removal of the CCC blog, an interview occurred at the Lakeville police department with Samantha Rucki. S.R. ran away in April 2013 after the family court failed to protect her from abuse. She remained in hiding with her sister for two years before being discovered. S.R. 's story has always been consistent – she was a victim to, and witnessed, domestic abuse perpetrated by her father and wanted to be kept safe. During the interview, it was revealed that S.R. was reading the CCC blog and had knowledge of her parents' divorce. S.R. also stated that her father and paternal aunt pressured her to recant abuse allegations. Lakeville Police Dept Docs and  Pressured, Threatened S. Rucki Bravely Speaks Out Against “Horrendous” Family Court

· An advocate for judicial accountability, who watched part of the criminal trial involving Grazzini-Rucki and has written about the case says,”This writer has written previously on the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Matter in Dakota County Minnesota, but your government has seen fit to scrub those articles from the internet. (Main Stream Media (MSM) has seen fit to not publish this writer’s previous articles on the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter.) In total, almost 200 of this writer’s blogs and several hundred of his posts and articles have been scrubbed from the Internet...” HON or POS? Is Dakota County MN suspending the Rule of Law in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter? 

·  Journalist, Michael Volpe, has been threatened by Dr. Paul Reitman. Dr. Reitman is the psychologist who diagnosed Grazzini-Rucki with “parental alienation” after meeting her and the five children for just 30 minutes. Dr. Reitman prescribed foster care for the Rucki children and then de-programming and reunification therapy to “cure” them of alienation. The allegations of abuse raised by the children were ignored by Dr. Reitman. In an e-mail to Volpe, Dr. Reitman stated,”I'm making $250000 a year working on cases like yours you son of a b****'s." This is a fact, as revealed in court records from Dr. Reitman's divorce, he reports his income to be $20,833 per month. Reitman also threatened physical violence against Volpe,”... Khan bring it home come see me let's have it out..” Approximately 50 e-mails were sent to Volpe from Dr. Reitman, another stated,”I'm waiting for you you mother sucker I know who you are you're a coward you're a pimp you are Hoare...Listen to me you and ramis go find a job you were firing as a cop you are a moron and incompetent idiot come see me I wanna take you on right now...No you won't respond cause you're a coward your horse Sandra is camping somebody."  Dr. Reitman is licensed psychologist with a PhD who, in identifying and referring to a former patient, as a “horse” who is being pimped out is not only disgusting..but also a violation of the  APA ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND CODE OF CONDUCT  Reitman Claims Court Bias Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki 

· Sandra Grazzini-Rucki attempted to file a restraining order against Michael Brodkorb on two previous occassions. Brodkorb formerly worked as an online troll – he was paid to create smear campaigns and spread negative information against political targets. He also is a former reporter but has not worked for any media outlet since attaching himself to David Rucki, and exclusively covering the case 24/7 on his blog. Both restraining orders filed against Brodkorb were dismissed. In a strange twist, Minnesota's courts protect Brodkorb's right to free speech but deny the right to Dede Evavold – who has been punished for what Brodkorb is allowed to do. Brodkorb's blogging has been defended as being the result of “persistent journalism”. Brodkorb also says the HRO violates his 1^st Amendment right to free speech; and that allegations are an attempt to get him to stop reporting on the case. These are the same arguments Evavold has raised in court but failed to persuade the judges of Minnesota, who granted the HRO against her filed by David Rucki (who filed on behalf of all 5 children, even the adult children who by law are required to file separate HRO petitions) and another filed by Brodkorb.

· The result of the harassment orders issued against Evavold could set a precedent for other cases of free speech and blogger's rights, creating a justification for courts to jail people and prevent them from writing articles, sharing articles or sharing social media posts.

· Evavold was ordered to remove posts from her blog relating to the Grazzini-Rucki case. The order was extended to remove hundreds of articles – even those not mentioning the case. Eventually the entire Red Herring Alert blog was removed from the internet.

Is the public getting the whole truth about the Grazzini-Rucki case or just a carefully written narrative from those with the most to hide?