Wednesday, January 30, 2019

2013 Minneapolis Fox Story on the Grazzini-Rucki Case

2013 Minneapolis (Minnesota) Fox Story on the Grazzini-Rucki Case

Includes statements from the two Rucki teens who ran away after the family court, presided by Judge David L Knutson, failed to protect them from physical and mental abuse. The statements were filmed while the girls were in hiding, afraid their father, David Rucki, would hurt them if the court went forward with it's plans to give him sole custody. 

The controversial Parental Alienation Syndrome, and it's use in family court cases involving domestic violence and child abuse, is also discussed. 

(Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children at Christmas, source: online)


Sunday, January 27, 2019

Bordkorb Batters Blogger


Michael Brodkorb, a notorious poison pen paid to write and produce attack blogs and social media against selected targets, ramps up efforts to suppress coverage on the Grazzini-Rucki case (and any documentation of domestic abuse and court corruption) and to remove the Red Herring Alert blog from the internet. 

WordPress has deemed the posting in question "Fair Use" and will not take down the article, despite Mr. Brodkorb's complaints. 

Blogger and whistle blower, Dede Evavold, continues to bravely speaks out despite the continued harassment and legal retaliation she faces for doing so:

"Let’s get some facts on the table.
The above book about the Grazzini case was written by known perjurer Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann, who by the way is the paralegal for Grazzini’s ex-husband’s attorney. This is simply a book of lies by omission.

Speaking of lies by omission, as most of you know, ABC’s 20/20″ aired “Footprints in the Snow” in April of 2016 and rebroadcast the episode with updated information in March 2017. Since then, there have been numerous repeat broadcasts on Discovery Communication’s Investigative Discovery channel and now the Oprah Winfrey Network.

20/20 suppressed evidence of abuse in the Grazzini case, and slanted the story, in order to portray mother, Sandra Grazzini, and myself as “vigilante parents” and “family court critics” who participated in a child-kidnapping network operating in a “hidden world”. In pushing this false narrative, ABC 20/20 covered up domestic abuse, and encouraged viewers to disregard cries for help from children who courageously spoke up to disclose the abuse.

The bigger picture is that Family Courts are “government” and as such are supported by public funding. A multi- billion dollar enterprise has been created by the family court divorce, domestic abuse and child abuse industries including Child Protective Services. Currently, non-profit and for profit advocacy groups nationwide are obtaining court connected federal funding through the Dept. of Health and Human Services to influence custody cases..."
 






 

Read More: WHY So Worried?




WHY SO WORRIED?


Knox (Automattic)
Jan 3, 22:25 UTC
Hello,
We have received a DMCA notice for material published on your WordPress.com site.
Normally this would mean that we’d have to disable access to the material. However, because we believe that this instance falls under fair use protections, we will not be removing it at this time.
Section 107 of the US Copyright Act identifies various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. You can learn more about that here:
While we believe that your use of the material is protected (we have fought for our users in similar cases in the past – see “WordPress wins against ‘straight pride’ group in copyright censorship case“), please keep in mind that the complainant may choose to continue to pursue this matter, perhaps directly with you. If you would prefer, you are still able to delete the content from your site yourself.
— BEGIN NOTICE —


Below is the post that has Michael Brodkorb so concerned. One would think that he would be happy to be getting publicity for his so called “fantastic” book of fiction.


PROFITING FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS



Let’s get some facts on the table.

The above book about the Grazzini case was written by known perjurer Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann, who by the way is the paralegal for Grazzini’s ex-husband’s attorney. This is simply a book of lies by omission.

Speaking of lies by omission, as most of you know, ABC’s 20/20″ aired “Footprints in the Snow” in April of 2016 and rebroadcast the episode with updated information in March 2017. Since then, there have been numerous repeat broadcasts on Discovery Communication’s Investigative Discovery channel and now the Oprah Winfrey Network.

20/20 suppressed evidence of abuse in the Grazzini case, and slanted the story, in order to portray mother, Sandra Grazzini, and myself as “vigilante parents” and “family court critics” who participated in a child-kidnapping network operating in a “hidden world”. In pushing this false narrative, ABC 20/20 covered up domestic abuse, and encouraged viewers to disregard cries for help from children who courageously spoke up to disclose the abuse.
The bigger picture is that Family Courts are “government” and as such are supported by public funding. A multi- billion dollar enterprise has been created by the family court divorce, domestic abuse and child abuse industries including Child Protective Services. Currently, non-profit and for profit advocacy groups nationwide are obtaining court connected federal funding through the Dept. of Health and Human Services to influence custody cases.

After 20/20 aired the original broadcast, numerous people demanded a retraction, but of course corporate media wouldn’t budge.

Below are letters from The Women’s Coalition written in 2016.
April 10, 2016 
Women: Boycott ABC! Share This Post!
20/20 Portrays Women as Malicious Liars/Alienators
Join Email Campaign to ABC President Channing Dungey

20/20’s latest episode, “Footprints in the Snow”, was ostensibly about two teens who fled into the underground on a snowy night, running away from a father they say is abusive, but a thinly disguised agenda soon becomes apparent.

It appears to be just the latest attempt by mainstream media to mislead the public into thinking women who are only trying to maintain custody of or protect their children, are actually vindictive, malicious liars out to destroy men and alienate them from their children—an age-old patriarchal theme nauseatingly replayed on primetime TV Friday night.

Sean Dooley, 20/20’s producer, along with reporter Elizabeth Vargas, portray Sandra Grazzini and Cindy Dumas, Damon’s mother and Executive Director of The Women’s Coalition, as liars who coached their children to falsely report abuse in an effort to alienate them from their fathers. This incriminates Damon, who was interviewed by Elizabeth Vargas for the story, and the girls as liars and accomplices in the plot to bring their fathers down.

They do this in part by making a clear statement that judges in both cases found there was no “credible evidence” of abuse by the fathers. Dooley is counting on the fact that the general public will believe a purportedly “honorable” judge over a mere woman or child.

The problem is that Dooley was provided with substantial “credible evidence of abuse” which refutes what the judges found and he omitted it in his obvious slanting of the story against Sandra and Cindy and by extension all women who dare accuse a father of abuse.

Dooley is now just one more part of the cover up of sexual abuse in Cindy’s case and physical and verbal abuse in Sandra’s case.

An article is in the works which will further detail the spinning of the story, but in the meantime, people can start emailing the President of ABC and let her know you are boycotting ABC until they issue an apology, a retraction of the episode and begin an investigation into the epidemic of women being falsely labeled liars and their children taken from them or left unprotected.

ABC President Channing Dungey: channing.dungey@abc.com
About President Dungey: http://www.tft.ucla.edu/2011/09/faculty-channing-dungey/
Write your own email or copy and paste:

—–Original Message—–
From: Rachel Alintoff
To: channing.dungey <channing.dungey@abc.com>
Cc: thewomenscoalitionpac <thewomenscoalitionpac@gmail.com>; 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 Grazzini, 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 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

YouTube Image from Footprints In The Snow

“The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.”
~Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US media and foreign policy critic~

Saturday, January 26, 2019

Dakota Dodges Questions in Grazzini-Rucki Case


(public domain image: Pixaby.com)


Journalist Michael Volpe continues to investigate the Grazzini-Rucki case, only to face resistance and refusal to answer questions regarding the unusual circumstances of the family court and criminal cases, and failure of authorities to protect the 5 Rucki children after serious allegations of physical, mental and sexual abuse were raised.

According to Mr. Volpe," What is the lesson here? Corrupt people, when cornered, either threaten to call the cops or claim you are harassing them.

The other lesson is that all these people are part of a massive and unprecedented cover-up. I know it, I can prove it, and that is what all of them are afraid of..."


Read more: Why Are All of David Rucki's Apologists and Propagandists Afraid of Me

Friday, April 27, 2018

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

Thursday, April 26, 2018

SEEKING JUSTICE - Dede Evavold Soldiers On




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.

Image result for justice quotes

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.”

Image result for justice quotes

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.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

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!

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Really Was This Necessary? Forced Entry of Dede Evavold's Home...Then Forced Removal of Her Blog

Another post removed from "Red Herring Alert... so apparently telling your own life story is now "harassment"?? Or maybe the corruption just doesn't want to be exposed..hmmm..

Read more about #Evavold case: Battle Over Free Speech Sends Blogger to Jail




REALLY? WAS THIS NECESSARY?

Nothing like a “no-knock” warrant to spice up your life! Coming home to 5 detectives, a US marshal, and a police officer already in your house is a bit unsettling. Having your electronics and documents taken is also unnerving. I can’t say I wasn’t expecting it, but one can never really prepare for it. Many of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s friends have been harassed and/or had searches conducted in their homes.
Keep in mind that we are well on our way to a police state. 25 ways that cops doing their jobs are turning us into a police state
Search Warrant and Inventory Receipt
(Click on documents to zoom-in)





As a general rule, cops can never break down your door to enter your home in a forced entry. Before entering your home, officers must knock, announce their presence, and wait for you to come to the door like you would for any other visitor. This requirement is called the “knock-and announce” rule. The purpose of this rule is to allow people an opportunity to respond so that violence can be averted and privacy protected. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a general rule. Once the cops knock and announce their presence, they only have to wait a reasonable amount of time for you to come to the door. If you do not come to  the door, they are permitted to make a forced entry.

(I’m assuming a battering ram was used to bash in my  garage door)
The issue that usually arises is what is a reasonable time for officers to wait before a forced entry? The Supreme Court has upheld forced entries after the cops only waited 15-20 seconds. Courts don’t generally require the police to wait for extended periods because of concerns that defendants will try to dispose of evidence before the police enter. If the police do not knock and announce as required, most courts will not automatically find that the police entry and search were illegal. Instead, they will just consider it a “factor” in determining whether the forced entry in your home and subsequent search were reasonable.
IMG_2219
Photo of returned items.
The names of the personnel who were present:
Detective Jim Dronen
Detective Kelli Coughlin
Detective Dave Watson
Detective Rick Hakanson
Detective Russ Helmueller
Inspector Matt Moran-US Marshals Service
Officer Eric Jensen-St. Cloud Police Department


~STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER UPDATES  ON THE GRAZZINI-RUCKI CASE~

The Best Interest of the Abuser: GAL Julie Friedrich

(Dakota County, Minn: 9/05/2012) A deeper look into Dakota County Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, and her recommendation to re...