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

For Not Removing Blog Posts: Evavold Held Without Bond

Leave a comment

The Provocateur

By Mike Volpe

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

Dede Evavold is in jail, held without bond: her crime, not removing blogs fast enough for a court.

This blatant violation of Evavold’s first amendment rights appears to be just fine with all involved: the sheriff, the judge and the media which have been covering the Rucki story.

The whole bizarre scenario started with David Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliott, filed an emergency motion on February 12, 2018.

“Ordering Respondent to immediately remove the entire post titled ‘Beaten Before Born: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Assaulted While Pregnant – Rucki Wanted to Kill Baby Because ‘Wasn’t Perfect.’, dated December 18, 2017, from the Red Herring Alert Blog and /or any subsequent revisions to the post along with any reposts and/or posts to Facebook and Twitter, which is a direct violation of Minnesota Statue § 609.748, Sub.1a;” The motion stated.
Remarkably, the original blog in question was re-printed from another blog; the story originated on Justice for Grazzini-Rucki children, where it remains today.

The motion was still quickly granted and Evavold was ordered to remove the blog post immediately.

The motion was granted even though Rucki has had glowing coverage from local media and national media like 20/20 and it’s not clear how a blog would “harass” him as he alleged.

An email to his attorney, Lisa Elliott, was left unreturned. More

TS Radio: TnT Tanya TalkS…Injustice in Oklahoma

Leave a comment

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

4:oo pm PST… 5:00 pm MST… 6:00 pm CST… 7:00 pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

More

New Hampshire Woman Takes on Oklahoma- and a Moot Court

Leave a comment

Written by: Michael Volpe and Tanya Hathaway

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

It’s All About Jurisdiction

A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.[1][2] Wikipedia

With a corrupt judge refusing to remove himself from the case, he had no problem ignoring the evidence that the court had no jurisdiction.

A court must have some sort of a stake in a case before it can hear it; that’s called Subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

 PROVING SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

Proper implementation of Subject–matter jurisdiction prevents judge shopping or forum shopping.

Some of a few of the many exhibits Hathaway presented for supporting arguments for lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction include: 1) Their marital home was in New Hampshire. Hathaway never lived in Oklahoma, and XXX (referring to Hathaway’s estranged husband) wasn’t living in Tulsa County.  XXX swore their marital home as his legal residence when he applied for a P.O. box, 2) XXX obtained a New Hampshire’s driver’s license on June 27th 2014- just weeks before filing- where he swore that he lived in New Hampshire, 3) Their marriage certificate listed New Hampshire as their legal address 4) Confirmation from the US Postal Service (USPS) that XXX permanently changed his home address from Tulsa to New Hampshire 5) dozens of resumes which XXX sent to potential employers where his return address was New Hampshire  6) While Hathaway examined XXX for her motion to vacate the suit due to lack of jurisdiction, he admitted that he did not have a residence or stay anywhere in Tulsa County during the time period required to claim Subject-matter jurisdiction.  Clearly, he relied on his insiders to take care of things.

Miller, during an argument with XXX’s attorney, even threw Hathaway a bone, saying, “I don’t understand why a driver’s licenses would not be admissible to go to evidence of where a person’s residence is in a hearing on Subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Judge Miller noted that Subject-matter jurisdiction came down to, “was the petitioner a resident of Oklahoma for six months prior to filing the petition?”

When XXX testified, he insisted that he was domiciled- or had a residence in-Oklahoma at the time he filed his petition in June 2014, but when asked to provide his address, he responded, “I did not have a formal address in Tulsa.”

He even repeated this assertion when Miller asked him the same question minutes later.

 JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL

Just as XXX knew he could rely on Hughes and Hastings, lawyers on XXX’s behalf, Hughes knew they could rely on Miller to make it all work. All they needed was something with the veneer of legitimacy: thinking Hathaway didn’t know better. Judicial Estoppel is a legal technicality which “prevents a party from asserting a position in one legal proceeding that directly contradicts a position taken by that same party in an earlier proceeding.According to the Cornell Law Review.

Hughes and her team argued because Hathaway had come to Oklahoma to challenge the lawsuit, this implicitly gave the state jurisdiction, except, as in this case, without Subject-matter jurisdiction, Judicial Estoppel is moot. They all know it.

Hathaway knew there was no Subject-matter jurisdiction, but couldn’t prove it until discovered additional evidence that was rock solid. Knowing she could prove it, she motioned to vacate the suit in a county that by law cannot hear or rule over the matter.

Put another way, you aren’t allowed to go to New Hampshire’s Department of Motor Vehicle and swear you live there and turn around and tell a court in Oklahoma weeks later you live in that state, if all your evidence is a storage receipt.

By all rights, it was a slam dunk. No evidence was presented to overcome the lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction as the defense relied solely on Judicial Estoppel.

That’s fraud, and neither estoppel nor anything else can be achieved by fraud, unless your friends with facing the Orwellian Miller appointed by the upstanding Presiding Judge Linda Morrissey who ignored requests to review the gross negligence claimed in this matter in her court.

By all rights, it was a slam dunk. No evidence was presented to overcome the lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction as the defense relied solely on Judicial Estoppel.

Miller denied Hathaway citing Subject-matter jurisdiction as the key to vacating the suit. Yet, The Hughes Team didn’t use that dedense! If they had, it was still a slam dunk.

Still, knowing Subject-matter jurisdiction overrides Judicial Estoppel (the defenses claim), Hathaway filed an emergency motion for reconsideration, arguing that Judicial Estoppel does not apply because subject matter was not established.  This caused Miller to augment his rulings the next day in court.

“I apparently, I left the impression and I want to correct it, that the only basis for my ruling yesterday was on the basis of Judicial Estoppel. It’s my intention to indicate that after hearing those many hours of testimony, the facts support that this court has Subject-matter jurisdiction,” the Orwellian Judge Miller stated at this hearing, “He was a resident based on the factual record presented.”

Factual Record information from Cornell University Law School Includes:

In General. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court.”

The “factual record” evidence consisted of a Tulsa storage unit receipt.  

Check out the You Tube video for highlights from the Subject-matter jurisdiction hearing.

David Rucki Says Blog Threatens Him

6 Comments

Michael Volpe

All rights reserved under the 1st Amendment regarding free speech. 

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

“Asphaug appears to be David Rucki’s personal judge. She presided over each of the four criminal trials in this case- Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold, Dough Dahlen, and Gina Dahlen.

Asphaug ruled to disallow nearly all of David Rucki’s criminal history and forced Gina Dahlen to testify in multiple trials even though she was a defendant still awaiting her trial.”

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

Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety.

That’s the allegation made in an ex-parte restraining order filed by David Rucki against Dede Evavold.

“Respondent (Evavold) continues to post information about my family, photos of my family, myself and other members of my family,” Rucki said in his ex-parte harassment restraining order application, “Respondent also continues to make allegations which are false but may incite others against me. My children are frightened for their safety and feel their privacy has been violated.”

The application continued, “This is a proven pattern that has been going on for years.”

Rucki does not specify what Evavold has said which is harassing or threatening; an email to Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliot, was left unreturned.

Evavold has a blog called Red Herring Alert, where she writes about the Rucki case among other blog posts.

This is not the first time David Rucki has used the legal system to try and shut Evavold’s blogging down. In the Summer 2016, his then attorney, Marshall Tannick, sent Evavold a letter threatening a lawsuit if she didn’t remove her blog immediately.

“I am writing to you on behalf of David Rucki,” began a letter from Tanick to Evavold from June 7, 2016, “and his daughters, Samantha and Gianna, with regard to the matter relating to the removal and concealment of the girls and related incidents that have occurred during that episode and thereafter.

“There are various civil claims arising from your involvement in this matter.”

Tannick did not respond to an email for comment and it’s not clear if he is representing him regarding the restraining order.

Evavold did not respond to the letter at the time and continued blogging. More

Marti Oakley: Report on the Whistleblower’s Summit

5 Comments

Marti Oakley

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

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

Report on the Whistleblowers Summit

First, we would like to thank all of those who came from far away places to attend the summit in support of our panel. We had seventeen states represented and 73 supporters in attendance that we connected with and now have as firm contacts. We were also able to socialize outside of the Summit to a great extent and formed many new partnerships and supporters which included many from the DC area who may be able to help in bringing attention to the issues we addressed.

Our panel was well received and I personally was proud of each of my panel guests who represented not only guardianship abuses, but also:

Danny Tate spoke to the conservator abuses, using his own experience as a backdrop. The audience was stunned listening to this articulate, talented and highly successful musician and songwriter, describe how an ex parte hearing that he had no notice of, had in actuality declared him to be insane. The result is that ten years later, even though the conservatorship supposedly ended, the attorney’s from both sides are still collecting the royalties from all of his music, while Danny has been left with virtually nothing.

Brian Kinter from the Judicial Accountability Movement (JAM) gave one of the most impassioned talks about the corruption of family/divorce courts, and most especially spoke to the damage caused to his children as a result of being subjected to this system predicated upon the destruction of families for profit. Brian’s young son Zach had accompanied him to the Summit. This young man made such an impression on attendee’s that he now has his own fan club!

Michael Volpe, one of the few nationally known reporters who has diligently reported on the abuses of families, individuals and children caught in the trap of family and probate courts revealed the end results of these tribunals that have destroyed so many lives. Michael is known most for his factual, documented reporting on many of these cases.

The Result?

More

TS Radio Updates: Hr:1– Sandra Grazzini-Rucki & Mike Volpe : Hr: 2 Sharmian Worely…What Would You Do?

1 Comment

Join us Sunday evening April 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm CST! More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: