Home

TS Radio Network: Monetized as Commodity’s ..Buying & Selling the Population w/ Brian Kinter and special guest David Jose

Leave a comment

Join us this evening September 18, 2018 at 7:00 pm CST!

More

Advertisements

Over 1,200 Minnesota Parents Are Suing to Shut Down Child Protective Services

4 Comments

Support Carey’s work on Patreon!

(CW) — A group of parents in Minnesota called Stop CPS From Legally Kidnapping Children has filed a request in federal court to “shut down the state’s child protection services, stop serial abuse of families and overturn the unconstitutional laws by which the agency operates,” according to a press release published Tuesday.

The group, led by Dwight Mitchell, a father who says his son was illegally taken from him for 22 months, first filed a civil rights complaint in April, and this week they vocally publicized their call to shut down the child services agency, which they claim engages in systemic lying, withholding information, and fabricating evidence. They are asking the federal court to suspend the state’s agency from enforcing child protection laws, and according to a petition signed by almost 5,000 people, are also demanding changes to the laws themselves.

Back in April, Mitchell said“Someone reported I spanked my child on his bottom. I was put in jail. My three children were taken away from me,”citing other states that have enacted laws to protect a parent’s “ordinary corporal punishment” rights. Though the practice of spanking is increasingly recognized as harmful to children’s well-being, it is highly questionable as to whether confiscating kids and placing them in foster homes is any better for their mental and emotional health.

According to the petition, which Mitchell started:

“I am fully aware there are children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection, but their protection must be balanced with the constitutional rights of the mothers and fathers.

“Child Protection Services (CPS) chooses to ignore those laws the legislature, made. Even when notified of those laws, they fabricated evidence, lie and go about their illegal activities with a brazen arrogance totally without fear of reprimand, reprisal or the consequences of their illegal actions.”

Among the changes to the law Mitchell and the group are calling for are making lying, fabricating evidence, and withholding information a felony, requiring more publicly available information so parents know their rights, eliminating total immunity for state agents, and requiring all parental termination cases to be jury trials.

More

Whistleblower’s! Special Event in Georgia in Honor of Sen. Nancy Schaefer

2 Comments

Join us Thursday evening March 22, 2018 at 7:00 pm CST! More

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

4 Comments

Michael Volpe

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

 

This is not the first time Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks has ruled on matters related to Grazzini-Rucki.

In September 2012, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered out of her home, out of the state, and ordered not to contact anyone she knew.

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

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.

On December 1, 2017, Minnesota Appeal’s Court Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks ruled that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki paying for David Rucki’s court costs.

“Although David Rucki prevailed on appeal, it appears that allowance of the claimed costs and disbursements would cause financial hardship, in light of the district court’s determination that appellant (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.”

When someone receives in forma pauperis status, they are deemed to poor to afford an attorney.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been represented in her divorce since early 2013 by Michelle MacDonald, who has worked pro-bono since receiving a $5,000 payment at the beginning of the case.

The same Judge, Jill Flaskamps-Halbrooks, ruled in September 2017 that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki had the ability to pay her ex-husband $975 per month in child support, despite Grazzini-Rucki being convicted of six felonies, homeless, and unemployed.

“Grazzini-Rucki asserts that she had no ability to pay child support because her employment with the airline was ‘in flux’ and that the CSM made ‘vague, generalized and conclusory findings’ that did not justify imputing income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1.5 But these assertions misconstrue the record, particularly the evidence admitted during the September 2016 hearing. The CSM found that after Grazzini-Rucki was released from jail, she submitted a document in March 2016 that stated that she currently worked as a flight attendant Grazzini-Rucki testified, and the CSM acknowledged, that her status of employment was unknown at the time of the September 2016 hearing. But Grazzini-Rucki did not provide any evidence that her employment status had changed or that her employment had been terminated after March 2016.” Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks asserted in her August ruling, when she confirmed that an earlier ruling ordering Grazzini-Rucki to pay her ex-husband $975 per month was appropriate.

After Judge Flaskamps-Halbrooks ruled in his favor in the child support appeal, his attorney, Lisa Elliott, filed to recoup his court costs.

Elliott did not respond to an email for comment.

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. More

David Rucki Claims Pastor and It’s Church Helped Hide His Daughters

8 Comments

By: Michael Volpe

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

“As I have documented meticulously, both the family court and the criminal court have manipulated evidence to unconstitutionally block the introduction of any evidence which would support abuse on David Rucki’s part.”

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

David Rucki now claims that a church and its pastor are also responsible for keeping him from his daughters, and he wants them to pay.

In a new lawsuit filed by Rucki, he sues several people and entities, including Destiny Church, along with the pastor, Steve Quernomoen and Quernomoen’s wife, Trish.

“During the time they were at White Horse Ranch, Samantha and Gianna were taken by the Dahlen’s or otherwise went to Defendant Destiny Church in Ashby, Minnesota. The Pastor of Destiny Church, Defendant Steve Quernomoen and his wife, Trish Quernomoen, became aware that Samantha and Gianna were being hidden from Plaintiff David Rucki in violation of a court order and failed to inform the authorities of their presence.” The lawsuit states.

White Horse Ranch is a ranch for abused children, and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s two oldest daughters, Samantha and Gianna, stayed at this ranch from April 19, 2013, to November 18, 2015; the Dahlen’s who own the ranch, Dede Evavold who recommended the girls stay there and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki were all convicted for their roles in keeping the girls there during this period.

David Rucki was granted sole custody of all his children during this period.

According to the lawsuit, the girls were kept there because they were frightened into believing that David Rucki was violent when he wasn’t.

“Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home from the care of their paternal aunt and to go with Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud Sauk Center and White Horse Ranch based on false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.” The lawsuit further states. More

WATCH: Your Child ‘Belongs to the State’: Lawmakers Claim the State Owns Your Children

2 Comments

The Daily Sheeple

Legislators in Texas have been working toward passing a host of laws to reform the state’s Child Protective Services agency. New legislation has been crafted to improve the agency which has seen multiple dilemmas resulting in detrimental safety problems for children in the state. There have been several bills introduced this year aimed at improving the agency. One bill, in particular, House Bill 39, seeks in part to require medical exams to be performed more quickly on children who have been newly placed into the foster care system.

HB 39, introduced by Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), would mandate that the state’s Department of Family Protective Services schedule a medical examination for children who have been in temporary state custody for longer than three business days. Children in rural locations would be required to receive a medical exam within seven business days.

While the bill was originally centered around hastening medical exams for new foster children, questions arose regarding whether vaccines would be included as part of these medical exams. Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington), the vice chairman of the Texas Freedom Caucus, introduced an amendment to HB 39 to make vaccinations exempt from the required medical treatments. The bill saw a turbulent debate upon Zedler’s amendment as the discussion turned to childhood vaccines and who should be responsible for crucial medical decisions when custody is obscured.

“You get that child back five, eight, 10 days later, and they’ve now had that surgery or they’ve had these vaccinations,” Zedler said according to Dallas Morning News. “That’s an issue of liberty.” More

The Vagina Rebellion? About those million women who took to the streets

18 Comments

new-logo251_002img_20160423_144516-2

 

 

Opinion:  Marti Oakley

 

I was contacted before the massive march by more than a million women, asking me to take part. Show my support! I owed it to them…what with me being so “out there” on so many things. And I thought about that for about ten seconds. Just long enough for me to give a resounding “NO!” And what I saw in these protests were signs that were just as vulgar, just as denigrating to women as anything that might have been said by some man trying to prove his masculinity.

So what did you accomplish? You took to the streets with your vulgar signs and thought this would elicit respect? Really?

I have no idea what is supposed to have been accomplished by these so-called protests. While I too found the comments by our then, soon to be president, disgusting and crass, the truth is, there are few men out there who have not spoken to or about women in this way. And they always have and always will. That doesn’t make it right, acceptable or otherwise okay. Its just a fact. Put your big girl panties on and get over it.

What seemed to have been skipped over by the protestors, was the following statement to the effect that “and they’ll let you do it too!” Now that I found truly disgusting mostly because we all know it to be true. There are always women who use their bodies to get or achieve something they want. How these women came to see themselves as having no worth other than this, is something worth investigating. Who told them, what convinced them, they were worth so little or that their body was all that they had of value?

While all you million or so vagina protestors were parading around with your vulgar signs and your idiotic protests, many of the rest of us were fighting the corruption in family courts. The kidnapping of children by CPS, forced adoptions, parental alienation caused by the courts, the targeting of the elderly in probate so their estates can be looted by professional predators.

So where are all you vagina activists when we need support for families?  For alienated parents, for isolated elders, for families so distressed that suicides have occurred? Where was all your self righteous, self absorbed indignation then?

And there you were holding a sign saying “My P@#$# isn’t for grabbing”. I was SO not impressed. And from what I saw, there were not too many of you that would really need to be concerned about this anyway.

You have emailed me telling me what a dismal excuse I am for a woman because I wouldn’t take to the streets screaming about who may or may not want to grab my vagina? If even half of you fools that paraded across the country would stand up to help in this fight to preserve our families, to protect them from being destroyed by government agencies and kangaroo courts, I would have been on the front lines.

As it is……I wouldn’t worry about who might want to grab your junk. They are most likely now more intrigued by what a bunch of asses you made of yourselves.

And that’s MY opinion.

Save

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: