We talked about feckless judicial oversight boards.
More background here and here.
Also, I mentioned that in the Rucki case, a judge ruled it did not matter how much money Sandra "Sam" Grazzini-Rucki made or how much money her ex-husband had,
that shocking ruling is here.
"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.”
Find the entire ruling by Minnesota Appeals Court Judge Jill Flaskamps-Halbrooks below.
Grazzini-Rucki Appeal (1) by on Scribd
2 comments:
Page 16: "Even if Grazzini-Rucki's affadavit presents evidence supportive of a different finding regarding her gross income, that does not necessarily mean the CSM's (Child Suppport Magistrate) finding is clearly erroneous.."
The Appellate is basically telling Sandra that no matter what her arguements are, or what evidence she offers, even if what Sandra says is true/has merit...the Appellate will not rule against the Magistrate.
Or, in laymen's terms, the law does NOT apply in the Grazzini-Rucki case. Which we the public have all seen; and the huge volume of evidence supports the judges in this case do whatever they want without impunity.
If you can remove a woman from her home without a proper hearing, you can certainly make her pay child support even though she is not working. Shh, don't tell 20/20 and their former correspondent Elizabeth Vargas, they don't want to know the truth, just their propaganda.
Post a Comment