Home

Minnesota: Rucki Case Spins Out of Control

4 Comments

The case against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has turned to chaos and most of the blame can be laid at the feet of Dakota County Judge Karen Asphaug.

Grazzini-Rucki was convicted in the fall 2016 of deprivation of parental rights for hiding two of her daughters from her abusive ex-husband- her ex-husband David Rucki has been involved in a bar fighta road rage incidentincidents of stalkingonce stuck a gun to his son Nico’s head, and chased after his daughter Samantha on her thirteenth birthday.

(A full dossier of David Rucki’s violence can be found here)
The conviction came only after Asphaug denied almost all evidence of David Rucki’s violence and abuse

The maximum sentence for the crime Grazzini-Rucki was convicted of was one year and one day and probation was assumed for anyone with no prior criminal record.

Though probation was assumed since Grazzini-Rucki had no prior criminal record, not only did Asphaug sentence Grazzini-Rucki to the maximum but made her serve it fifteen days at a time over a period of six years.

Grazzini-Rucki was picked up for this crime in October 2015 and served approximately five months in prison awaiting trial largely because Asphaug set her bail then at $500,000, referring to her as a flight risk. 

She also served a month immediately after being sentenced and another three weeks for a probation violation.

As such, by the end of 2016, she had less than two months to serve. More

Advertisements

What Entities are Behind the Reckless Endangerment of Northern Minnesota and its Water Resources

Leave a comment

Duty to Warn

By Gary G. Kohls, MD – March 6, 2018

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The wise blogger wrote:

Industry-controlled ‘science’ is not really science but a smokescreen to pave the way for products that may be harmful – but what do they care as long as they profit? There are many great scientists but there are also some who are willing to be hired to ‘prove’ that something doesn’t cause cancer, or that something is ‘safe’. You cannot trust the EPA, the FDA, or industry ‘science’.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is an incomplete list of some of the culprits:

A) Foreign Mining Corporations (PolyMet, Glencore, Twin Metals, Antofagasta, etc);

  1. Minnesota’s Elected Politicians/Accomplices (both Corporate-influenced “Liberal” Democrats, and “Conservative” Republicans);
  2. Minnesota’s “Regulatory” Agencies that are Supposed to be “Natural Resource Protectors” (Including the DNR, the PCA, and the US Forest Service); and
  3. Most Area Newspapers; Most Area Television Stations; All the Area’s Chambers of Commerce; Minnesota Power (Electric Utility); the Trump Administration; Regional Labor Unions: and Dozens of Suppliers/Businesses that will Temporarily Profit from Supplying the Mining Industry While Simultaneously Risking the Permanent Poisoning of the St Louis River Watershed, Including Lake Superior

This column will point out and try to de-mystify some of the often-perplexing developments in the decades-long debate concerning allowing foreign mining corporations (which could justifiably be considered “Undocumented Aliens”) to invade water-rich northern Minnesota in order to extract our state’s non-ferrous metal deposits- for the selfish enrichment of its foreign shareholders and management, none of whom really care about the long-term consequences to the state’s precious water resources.

Everywhere in the world where copper mines have been dug and the poisonous tailing’s ponds have been installed, there has not been a single one that has not permanently polluted the ground water and the downstream watersheds, often catastrophically, see the list of 100 of them at . State of the art copper sulfide mines inevitably produce as an inevitable by-product sulfuric acid and many other toxic substances that poison the soil, air, ground water, nearby aquifers, lakes and downstream rivers, especially in water-rich environments like northern Minnesota. More

Sandra “Sam” Grazzini-Rucki in Her Own Words: Dakota County Minnesota Corruption

Leave a comment

Published on Jan 24, 2018

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki describes a life on the run, courts ignoring sexual abuse, attempted murder, and other crimes at the hands of her husband, David Rucki. These crimes are allowed to happen largely due to a ring of judges, cops, and lawyers in Dakota County , Minnesota, and this is happening with the full knowledge of local, state and national media, namely 20/20; all of whom refuse to report on the truth.

 

David Rucki Commits Apparent Mortgage Fraud.

6 Comments

By Michael Volpe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The initial document which started this investigation was sent by Michael Brodkorb, who runs a blog dedicated to bad mouthing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and anyone who supports her, to an Angie Young.

He sent it to Young because the initial document is signed A. Young and Angie Young is neighbors with Dede Evavold, a supporter of Grazzini-Rucki.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As his divorce was heating up, David Rucki engaged in blatant and brazen mortgage fraud.

According to the tract search, on June 3, 2011, the mortgage on Rucki’s Lakeville home was satisfied, meaning it was paid off, but inexplicably, his house was then foreclosed on- only to have him or his agents buy it back at auction every time- and sold at auction four times.

Rucki continues to own the property with numerous dubious and potentially fraudulent entries.

In the first case, Deutsche Bank Trust is listed as a brand-new mortgagor, the one providing the loan, on June 30, 2012.

On October 11, 2012, as part of a foreclosure, Deutsche Bank Trust was removed as the mortgagor in pen on the property and Wallingford Capital was written in instead.

Lawton King at Deutsche Bank said the loan was being serviced by Ocwen which provided this statement: “This loan is not in our system. We also checked different variation.”

Deutsche Bank, and their public affairs officer Lawton King, did not provide any further details on what happened to the loan.

According to the same document, Wallingford Capital then assumed this loan of $140,365 at 4.75%, an unusually low rate for a property bought at foreclosure, but David Rucki continued to remain in the property. Wallingford Capital did not return a message for comment.

The law firm Shapiro and Zielke was listed as handling the sale; their managing partner, Lawrence Zielke, issued this statement.

This was a public sale.  We do not control which party bids at sale.     I suggest you consult with your own real estate lawyer so counsel can walk your through this process.   I have nothing further to say on this matter.” More

Though the court has ruled Sandra Grazzini-Rucki too poor to pay for her own filings, her ex-husband’s attorney thinks she should pay for his.

4 Comments

Michael Volpe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lisa Elliott, the long-time attorney for David Rucki, filed a notice for a taxation of costs- meaning she wants the other side to pay for the costs of filing- with the appeals court.

In her response, Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald explained to the court that her client is a pauper.

“Appellant, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, hereby objects to the taxation of costs and disbursements dated September 1, 2017,” MacDonald said in her response, “on the ground that: Appellant was granted informa pauperis status and is a pauper.”

By granting Grazzini-Rucki informa pauperis status the court has deemed Grazzini-Rucki too poor to afford to pay for her own filing fees and they are thereby waived; but that hasn’t stopped Elliott from demanding she pay for her client’s filing fees.

MacDonald, after receiving a $5,000 retainer in early 2013, has been working on Grazzini-Rucki’s custody case pro-bono; she was once forced to conduct part of a custody trial while handcuffed to a wheelchair.

The latest filing follows a similar filing by Elliott in late August asking the court which handled her client’s divorce to order Grazzini-Rucki to pay for all the filing fees- in excess of $3,000- she accrued in that court.

The series of events defy logic. More

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki maybe homeless, jobless, and penniless but that doesn’t mean should not be paying child support to her multi-millionaire ex-husband.

9 Comments

Michael Volpe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The court acknowledged that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is currently earns no money but used the concept of imputed income to justify its ruling.

Imputed income allows judges to base child support based on an income level the judge deems is reasonable even if the party is not currently earning that living.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That was the peculiar ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals authored by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks.

Judge Halbrooks upheld a decision by Judge Maria Pastoor of the Minnesota’s First Judicial District who ordered Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband, David Rucki, $975 per month in child support.

David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who received 100% of the marital estate along with sole custody of their five children in an even more bizarre ruling by Judge David Knutson.

Pastoor’s original ruling was even more bizarre because she made the ruling while Grazzini-Rucki was incarcerated for helping to hide her two oldest daughters after David Knutson forced them into the custody of her ex-husband’s sister, who the two girls insisted was abusive to them.

“Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM erred by imputing potential income to her because the CSM (1) disregarded her actual income, (2) failed to make a proper statutory analysis, and (3) improperly adopted a level of income determined by the district court in a prior order. A CSM must calculate a parent’s income based on her potential income.” Judge Halbrooks stated in the order, justifying how a homeless woman can be forced to pay child support. More

Minnesota taxpayer rights are under assault./Bag the Ban

Leave a comment

Minnesota taxpayer rights are under assault.

In what will be a precedent-setting move for the entire state, Minneapolis is scheduled to pass an illegal tax this Friday that blatantly violates the spirit of Minnesota’s taxpayer protection laws. If they succeed, there will be a domino effect and other cities will use the same playbook to impose higher taxes and institute corporate welfare without giving taxpayers a say in the matter.

It’s not supposed to be easy to raise taxes on the people of Minnesota. State law goes so far as to require a vote of the people before any new sales taxes can be passed. But Minneapolis is going out of its way to dodge similar accountability.

By calling their 5-cent grocery bag tax a “pass-through charge,” and funneling the money straight to corporate retailers instead of a public purpose, Minneapolis City Councilmembers think they can avoid triggering state taxpayer protections.

We cannot let this happen. That’s why we’ve put together a petition to alert Minnesota elected officials to what’s going on in Minneapolis and to urge them to stop this outrageous policy before taxpayer protections are eroded throughout our state.

Minneapolis does not need more taxes and government control. What our state needs is more accountability to taxpayers.

Click here to sign the petition and fight back against higher taxes and corporate giveaways.

Thanks,
Bag the Ban

Bag the Ban is brought to you by the people of NOVOLEX

 

%d bloggers like this: