this is Michael Volpe. I'm a freelance investigative journalist. I understand that Investigation Discovery re-broadcast "Footprints in the Snow" the 20/20 episode I long ago discredited but ID and your family of networks continue to re-broadcast it. I'd like an answer to some questions.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCulTBdqHQ&t=377s why didn't 20/20 play any of the audio from 4:51-7:10 when Samantha Rucki described her father ripping an organ leg off an organ and choking her mother, choking her sister, making comments about Samantha's breasts and running his hands up his daughter's legs. They had this audio since they played other parts.
2) https://www.scribd.com/doc/316692570/SamiRucki on page fifteen Nico Rucki describes his father sticking a gun to his head when he was eight years old. Nico, in the broadcast, said he's never seen his father be violent. Obviously, both can't be true. Which one is?
Ms. Buck's response was, "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We were unaware until your outreach on Friday that there was anything called into question in this program, and we are currently looking into the claims you presented with the producers at ABC News. While we investigate further, Investigation Discovery has removed “Footprints in the Snow” from our schedule. Thank you for reaching out."
Even though all Dede Evavold did was re-post an article
already posted elsewhere, numerous Minnesota courts blatantly ignored her fist
amendment rights, while first charging her criminal and then issuing a fifty-year
protective order.
The whole thing started when David Rucki asked for and
received an emergency harassment order because he claimed Evavold’s blogging
harassed him.
“Respondent has engaged in online harassment of myself and
my family in direct violation of court ordered probation. Respondent continues
to post to a blog owned by Respondent about myself and my family, including
false allegations, photos, and identifying information.”
At the time, and now, Dede Evavold was on criminal probation
so, if in fact as David Rucki stated, she was violating that probation, she
should have had that probation violated, but she didn’t.
Furthermore, while Evavold did operate the now defunct, as a
result of this, website Red Herring Alert, Rucki does not list any of the offending
posts which defamed him, or provided personal information.
Furthermore, most of the harassment order application is
blank: because Evavold never confronted him in public, called him by phone,
emailed him, no other threatening behavior, nor had she tried to visit him at home.
In other words, though David Rucki said this, “My children are frightened and feel their privacy has been violated,” this was not through any direct contact, but David Rucki was arguing that blog posts frightened his children, and violated their privacy.
This even though he has been featured on 20/20, had Michael Brodkorb’s website dedicated to his case, and was cooperating with Brodkorb on a book which would be completed more than a year later.
Furthermore, Red Herring Alert averaged less than one thousand clicks daily: TOTAL.
Not only was his harassment order granted, but it was granted on an emergency basis, ex parte by Judge Karen Asphaug.
That is the recently retired, early, former Judge Karen Asphaug.
Asphaug appeared to be something akin to a personal judge for David Rucki. In 2009, he screamed and swore uncontrollably at two and three year olds, he even said to adults he dared to call the cops, "If any of you assholes ever call the police on me again, I'll raise holy hell."
That case also came in front of Judge Asphaug, after David Rucki was charged with disorderly conduct.
On the eve of trial, Asphaug dismissed the case for a lack of probable cause, despite no motion to dismiss being in front of her- called sua sponte- and even though there was numerous witnesses so that probable cause standard should have been met.
David Rucki's two oldest daughters- Samantha and Gianna- ran on April 19, 2013, because they were going to be forced to live with their father. Samantha describes why they ran below.
The legal system in Minnesota- which has always catered to David Rucki- charged four people with crimes after the girls were found in November 2015.
His ex-wife, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Evavold, and Doug and Gina Dahlen, with whom the girls stayed.
Asphaug presided over all four cases and in a heavy handed manner, made sure any evidence of abuse was excluded from the case. In a sweeping motion in limine which she granted for the prosecution, I described the mountain of evidence Asphaug excluded here.
She also sentenced Evavold and Grazzini-Rucki to the maximum, one year and one day, even though neither had any criminal record and even ordered Grazzini-Rucki to serve it bits at a time over six years, while giving Evavold and eight year probation.
So, it's no surprise that she granted this emergency harassment order, ex-parte, even though the only harassment alleged was somehow through blog posts on an obscure blog.
Remarkably, as the presiding judge over Evavold's case, if Asphaug really believed she'd violated her probation terms, as Rucki suggested, she should have given her a probation vioation, not a harassment order.
The harassment order was indeed overkill because Evavold was restricted in which she could say by her probation.
Still on February 12, 2018, David Rucki's attorney filed an emergency motion asking for an emergency hearing. That motion is below.
Still, Elliott treated this very seriously, stating in her emergency motion,
"Ordering Respondent to immediately remove the entire post titled “Beaten Before Born:
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Assaulted While Pregnant–RuckiWanted 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."
This set off a flurry of activity which eventually led to Evavold's arrest. One offending blog posts, which was simply a repost, turned into eighteen offending blog posts, with Lisa Elliott demanding Evavold remove more and more, as Evavold removed these blog posts.
The series of events are described on a subsequent unpublished opinion written by Judge Diane Bratvold (you can't be too proud of the opinion you wrote if you make it unpublished)
"The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Respondents relied on the affidavit and copies of the 18 posts from Evavold's blog. Evavold testified that she 'removed {Rucki's} address from the December post but admitted she did not otherwise change the post. In a written order, the district court found Evavold 'is in constructive civil contemtp' and instructed her to remove the 18 posts. Evavold did not comply with the order, and the district court subsequently issued a warrant for her arrest. She was taken into custody, but was conditionally releasted a few days later after the district court found she was attempting to comply with the court's order."
Kanning's order was so cursory- that order is found here- that an attorney Evavold was able to secure argued that the judge was required to show more work. His argument is below.
Her attorney stated in part, "The blog posts, because they are not fighting words or true
threats, do not constitute harassment under Minnesota law. The Minnesota Court
of Appeals has analyzed the breadth of the statute in connection with a First
Amendment challenge to Minn. Stat. § 609.748 and concluded that the statute
only 'fighting words' or 'true threats' are covered. Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d
552, 566 (Minn. App. 2006) (“Because the harassment statute only regulates
speech or conduct that constitutes 'fighting words,' 'true
threats,' or substantial invasions of one's privacy, we conclude that the
statute is narrowly tailored and is, therefore, constitutional.”) Id. In
considering the statute as narrowly tailored, the Court of Appeals excluded the
kind of interpretation used by Petitioners here."
That appeal was also denied, with the appeal's court finding no sympathy toward Evavold's 1st amendment rights, "Here the district court denied Evavold's motion to vacate the HRO after finding that Evavold's conditions of probation were 'no contact' with the Rucki children and that 'she was prohibited from referring to the children on social media.' The district court found that Evavold 'violated the terms of her probation by posting photos and information about the Rucki family. These postings included many references about David Rucki and his children.' The district court also found that Evavold 'has effective control over the postings on the {Evavold's blog}.' The court finally found that Evavold's conduct in making her posting was 'intended to terrify, threaten, and invade the privacy of {Rucki} and his minor children' and concluded that Evavold's conduct was 'harassment most evil'"
Get that, you can frighten people with blog posts on an obscure blog and it is "harassment most evil" even if you don't ever make contact with any of those you are accused of harassing.
Indeed, Minnesota even tried to charge Evavold criminally for all this.
The docket is below. As you will see by examining it, the state took the case until a trial date was scheduled, then it was cancelled on the eve of trial, and then dismissed.
Meanwhile, the HRO which Rucki had first filed in July 2017, was nearly about to expire.
In fact, the appeals court which gave no sympathy to Evavold's 1st amendment argument, only issued its decision on July 15, 2019, by the end of the month, that would expire.
Of course, the court caters to David Rucki so he reached out to his favorite Judge, Karen Asphaug, and on September 19, 2019, just two months after it had expired, Asphaug re-issued to harassment restraining order for another fifty years, to end in 2069, without even conducting a hearing, just responding to Lisa Elliott's motion.
Now, Evavold can't say Rucki's name or anyone related to the case for fifty years. Approximately a month and a half, on October 31, 2019, Judge Karen Asphaug announced she would be retiring from the bench early.
In that order, Judge Abrams begins in a most bizarre manner, by stating, "The court has been left in an unusual posture since the decision of Deirdre Evavold to "quit" participating as a defendant in this case."
Evavold is one of several defendants being sued by David Rucki. A previous filing from the suit, which lists all plaintiffs and defendants, along with a summary of the case, is below.
Evavold withdrew as a defendant, meaning she would lose by default, previously. Somehow, Judge Abrams claims this made things more complicated.
Evavold is not the only litigant who the judge admonished in his order. He also admonished State Farm, drawn in because they provide homeowner's insurance coverage to Evavold.
While they may have been drawn in, State Farm then proceeded to demand they be able to depose, Evavold and her husband, even though her husband wasn't even being sued; they even wanted for Lisa Elliott, David Rucki's attorney, to be able to depose her on the same day.
The judge continued, "State Farm takes the position, in an unhelpful response to the court, that it should enter a finding of no coverage," meaning State Farm shouldn't be forced to pay whatever damages David Rucki proves.
Judge Abrams then noted that on November 1, 2019, he ordered the parties to agree on terms to dispose of the case or to draft all the issues which were still unsettled.
State Farm, as Evavold's insurer, was still left, but Evavold was not.
There was no agreement, and this also seemed to irritate Judge Abrams.
"Again, not surprisingly, the parties formally set forth what they disagreed about in correspondence, in response to this court's order.
"As a consequence of these divergent viewpoints, the Court is left without the ability to formulate a plan, as the parties cannot agree on the issues which remain in these cases, the timing of any future events, nor a process under which these matters can be directed to a fair and orderly resolution."
There was a February 3, 2020, trial date scheduled but that was postponed until at least June, however, Abrams also requires agreement on numerous issues which there is no agreement yet as well.
The History
On April 19, 2013, David and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's two oldest daughters- Samantha and Gianna- ran and disappeared.
They were found in November 2015 and because David Rucki had a custody order giving him sole custody; Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and others were charged with crimes.
In 2016, all those charged with crimes were either convicted or plead guilty.
Doug and Gina Dahlen, with whom the two girls stayed willingly, plead guilty; SGR and Evavold, who recommended the Dahlen's to SGR, were found guilty in trials.
David Rucki, the courts, and the media all claimed that SGR was "alienating" him from his kids and that's why all five of his kids rejected him and why the two girls ran.
SGR and all her kids, at various times, all said David was abusive, as in this audio recording made by his daughter, Samantha, where she said he choked her mother with an organ leg, choked her sister on a couch, and made comments about Samantha's breasts and ran his hands up her leg. (Starting at 4:51 until 7:10)
Below are 99 pages of incidents of violence by David Rucki.
Despite that, as I said, there were convictions or guilty pleas; as such, David Rucki has since been systematically approaching those considered by the law perpetrators against him and demanding civil settlements as well.
He, I was told, approached the Dahlen's and settled, in a conveniently sealed settlement, for six figures.
This lawsuit in which Judge Abrams now has a hissy fit in was presumably the next step.
Everything was moving nicely along. On May 10, 2019, according to the docket, which is below, a judgment was entered.
While there was a judgment, a summary judgment in fact, it was still not entirely clear who needed to pay, particularly State Farm or Evavold.
Also, while Judge Abrams issued a summary judgment, this was only on most of the case, he left one part undecided, the issue of whether or not Evavold falsely imprisoned the two girls.
The audio previously referenced was made shortly after Samantha ran. It is below, again, you decide if she ran willingly or was falsely being imprisoned.
The dispute over whether the girls were falsely imprisoned should not have caused, in my opinion, as much confusion as it has.
Since that May 10 judgment, things have slowly deteriorated, but especially, since I had a conversation with LeHoan Pham, an attorney who represents State Farm in this, in September.
I wanted to know why he was desperately trying to depose his insurance company's client; if State Farm represented Evavold, it didn't seem like a good look that the insurance company would try and depose her.
Even worse, Pham filed a "joinder motion" with Lisa Elliott, David Rucki's attorney. Here is the motion
Evavold blew off that deposition and when Pham tried to have Judge Abrams force Evavold to sit for a deposition, Abrams did not take him up on his offer, instead ordering the terse order below, which he issued on November 1, 2019.
Even though Twitter finds nothing wrong it, Brodkorb was able to get a protective order against Evavold, and others, but particularly Evavold.
Brodkorb is David Rucki's smear merchant and propagandist. He publishes the website Missing in Minnesota, where he dedicates himself to smearing SGR and anyone who supports her.
He mentioned Evavold's fracas with him on the site.
A judge in Dakota County scheduled Dede Evavold’s criminal trial for March 23, 2020, on a criminal charge of violating a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) filed against her by Michael Brodkorb. Evavold was charged in May after she attempted to contact Brodkorb for assistance in restarting her blog after WordPress suspended it for violating their terms of service. Evavold’s criminal trial was scheduled during a hearing today at the Dakota County Northern Service Center in West St. Paul, Minnesota. An evidentiary hearing was also scheduled for February 28, 2020.
This is despite the fact that Evavold was only shown to have received a copy of the photo. That order is here.
Then, Evavold contacted Brodkorb's attorney, which Brodkorb claimed violated the harassment order.
Initially, prosecutors agreed.
Here is an email from Elliott Knetsch from June 26, 2019, Ms. Evavold-
We are in receipt of your correspondence below. Please be advised that anything you say or send to us may be used against you in court. You may wish to consult with an attorney before sending us any further correspondence.
After careful consideration, we will not be dismissing the charges at this time.
That same Knetsch on January 22, 2020, told Brodkorb in the above letter, "I have reviewed the above referenced police report and after serious consideration, I have decided not to file criminal charges against Mrs. Evavold for this incident."
Remarkable.
Judge Karen Asphaug Out
(Judge Karen Asphaug)
Here isan item which flew under the radar for a while.
As of October 31, 2019, Judge Karen Asphaug has announced her intention to retire.
Who is Judge Karen Asphaug?
She presided over the criminal trials of SGR, Dede Evavold, and the two Dahlen's.
She has materialized in David Rucki's world many times.
In this article, David Rucki screamed uncontrollably and swore at two and three year olds. Then, when his neighbors threatened to call the police, he said, "If any of you assholes ever call the police on me again, I'll raise holy hell," according to the police report.
Judge Asphaug was the presiding the judge, who dismissed the case inexplicably for a lack of probable cause, though there were several witnesses who gave police statements, on the eve of trial in February 2010.
She also recently granted David Rucki a fifty year harassment order against Evavold. That protective order is below. That order was signed on September 9, 2019.
As such that that order expires in 2069. It forbids Evavold from saying David Rucki and his children's names anywhere publicly, particularly not on social media.
I described Asphaug's role in David Rucki's corruption in more detail in the video below, starting at 41:15.
Now, she is out as a judge. Here is from the announcement, "The vacancies will occur upon the retirements of the Honorable Lawrence Clark and the Honorable Karen Asphaug. The position created by Judge Clark’s retirement will be chambered at Red Wing in Goodhue County. The position created by Judge Asphaug’s retirement will be chambered at Hastings in Dakota County." That announcement was made on October 31, 2019. It seems one of David Rucki's favorite judges will not be around to do him more favors.
(Minnesota First Judicial District Judge David Knutson)
A newly unearthed document from the divorce of David Rucki and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki (SGR) shows David Rucki knew ahead of time the outcome of his divorce trial.
In a document David Rucki sent to a school affiliated with the Hosanna Church in Minnesota, Rucki claimed that he had sole custody of his children and his ex-wife, SGR, only had supervised visits.
Indeed, just as David Rucki predicted in September, the November 2013, custody order does grant him sole custody while his ex-wife, SGR, was limited to supervised visits and even those required so much therapy and other pre-requisites that she never actually saw her any of her five kids from that moment forward.
However, that order wouldn't come until November 2013 and if David Rucki knew about it in September 2013 that would suggest there was not only ex-parte communication between him and the judge but also collusion.
The custody trial featured a period on the second day when SGR's attorney, Michelle MacDonald, was forced to conduct part of it handcuffed to a wheelchair. See video below, starting at an hour and ten minutes in.
On page four, Gilbertson states in an entry from September 5, 2012, "I received a call from Ms. Fredderick (sic), guardian ad litem to a family matter in which five children are separated from both parents by court order."
The problem is that the court order he referred to did not come until September 7, 2012. That is below.
On September 5, as his entry, indicates, no decision had technically been made. Indeed, in his September 7, 2012, order, David Knutson ordered SGR out of her home and ordered David Rucki's sister, Tammy Love, to live in the home and take care of the five kids, temporarily at least.
David Rucki was already living in one of the other three homes the couple owned.
So, how did Julie Friedrich know this would be the order, only through an illegal ex-parte communication.
Later on in Gilbertson's notes, there is another unintentional disclosure of ex-parte communication.
"The court order authorizing the Rucki children to be at the Overland Place came out late Friday.
"I immediately received a call from Ms. Olson stating that she wanted the transfer to occur as soon as possible because of the fear the children will learn of this through some unknown means and will run."
That entry is from April 9, 2013.
Those who know the story well know that the oldest girls were then taken to a police station in Lakeville, Minnesota, on April 19, 2013- ten days after this entry- and then forced to go live with their paternal aunt in their home on Ireland Place in Lakeville. About a half hour after they arrived at their home that day, the two oldest daughters- Samantha and Gianna- ran.
But Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was not made aware of this order on April 9, 2013. Ms. Olson is Nancy Olson, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's sister; even she was told, but the children's mother was not.
In fact, according to Gilbertson's notes, everyone was aware what would happen except SGR.
So, again, there is communication between the court and some but not all parties in this case.
Gilbertson, some may know. was accused by Samantha in an audio recording of rubbing her shoulder and back and getting sexually aroused during a break in a court hearing. Audio below and that portion starts at 3:10.
So, that is at least three times when the court illegally communicated with certain parties about upcoming orders but not with others.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is a six time felon because after her two oldest daughters ran they called her and she, violating this court order, hid them for approximately two and a half years and thus her ex-husband did not get his scheduled custody time.
All of the illegality in this article has gone unpunished.
I sent an email to Lisa Elliott, David Rucki's attorney, and received no response.
I also sent an email to Knutson who did not respond. Finally, I sent an email to the four Minnesota Judiciary spokespeople- Alyssa Siems-Roberson, Kyle Christopherson, Lissa Finne, and Beau Berentson- but they also did not respond.
(Minnesota Judge Karen Asphaug)
It appears I have the power to puppeteer corrupt judges and lawyers to act in cases they'd like to ignore when it involves the Rucki story at least.
Last week, Lisa Elliott, who represents David Rucki, filed her response, somewhat belatedly, upon the order of Judge Jerome Abrams.
Judge Abrams had given all parties in her lawsuit against Dede Evavold and several others one month to come to an agreement or to list all the issues which still remained.
Shortly before Elliott filed, I wrote an article on the case in which I noted, "State Farm conferred with the Ruckis’ attorney to discuss a potential joint resolution.Given the Rucki’s counsel this Court asserting that there is coverage under the PLUP,there does not appear to be room for compromise between State Farm and the Rucki’s in the declaratory judgment action. ( Id . at ¶ 10, Ex. I, pg. 1).To date, there has been no response from the Ruckis’ counsel to State Farm’s emails from November 4 and 12, 2019, and December 2, 2019." I don't think it is very professional for David Rucki and his attorney, Lisa Elliott, to initiate a lawsuit and then stop participating when things get complicated, but at least for now, that appears to be Ms. Elliott's tact.
The article was written on December 16, 2019; and Elliott had not yet filed her response to this judicial order.
I didn't believe the timing was coincidental, stating in part in a follow up email to her (Elliott), "The next day you file something. Is this a coincidence?" Elliott did not respond. Her response also has some interesting tidbits like that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, technically also a defendant in this lawsuit has never been served, "The Rucki’s have
settled with severalof the Defendants but have not be able to effect service of the
Summons and Complaint on Defendant Sandra Grazzini-Rucki." Here is Judge Abram's ruling from September 2019, for more on the lawsuit.
Elliott did not note that her client, Samantha Rucki, has also not been served even though that appears to be the case.
It's noteworthy that Elliott has been engaging in child support matters with Grazzini-Rucki even as this case has moved forward.
Here is more on the child support case which only ended in September 2019.
It's not clear how Elliott could serve Grazzini-Rucki in child support and fail to serve her for this lawsuit, but rules don't seem to be a problem for her and her client in court so I'm sure that Judge Abrams will overlook this oversight.
What is even more interesting is this not the first time that an article- or in one case an email- by me has caused sudden movements in court by players associated with the Rucki case.
In late November 2019, I wrote about how Judge Karen Asphaug had popped up on another Dede Evavold matter.
Evavold is facing criminal charges for violating a harassment restraining order by sending an email to a lawyer. That HRO was implemented because she received a photo, though no one is sure what if anything she did with it.
I noted in that article that Judge Asphaug had popped up on the case. It is not the first time Asphaug has popped up in Dede Evavold's life.
Earlier in 2019, Asphaug granted David Rucki a fifty year, or one which ends in 2069, restraining order because Evavold repeatedly wrote blog posts he did not like.
Then, there is the retired, but awfully busy, Judge Kathleen Gearin. On March 2, 2019, I wrote an article noting that she was not making a decision, which should have been due in the previously noted Rucki child support case. I noted in part,
It appears the judges handling Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s child support are not entirely sure what to do.As I recently reported, the judge assigned to the case, Judge Phillip Kanning, is no longer assigned.Meanwhile, a motion first filed in October continues to languish three weeks after a hearing to argue it was held. That motion awaits a decision from another judge, Kathleen Gearin. Both Gearin and Kanning are retired judges.
March 2, 2019, was a Saturday. By Monday 4, 2019, Gearin had suddenly made her decision.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is homeless, jobless, and has not seen any of her children since 2013, while David Rucki is a multi-millionaire who somehow qualifies for state aid for poor folks known as Minnesota Care, but this did not stop Gearin from affirming a previous order stipulating that the homeless woman pay the multi-millionaire child support.
I discussed the whole child support affair in this interview.
He also chasedafter his daughter Samantha on her thirteenth birthday until she barricaded herself in her house. His son, Nico, told CPS that when he was eight years old his fatherstucka gun to his head.
The judge, David Knutson, insisted that the five Rucki children must live with their father and ordered as much, or sort of.
On April 19, 2013, the two oldest girls, Samantha and Gianna, were told they'd be living with their paternal aunt, Tammy, and this would eventually lead to living with their father.
They were transported by police escort and taken to their home where their aunt awaited. About a half hour after the police left, so did the two girls, who called their mother, or at least the person she was with. Their mother took them to Evavold's who recommend they stay with Doug and Gina Dahlen, a couple living in another part of Minnesota who ran a shelter for abused children; this stayed this way until the girls were found in November 2015.
Now, all four- Grazzini-Rucki, Evavold, and the two Dahlens- are convicted felons.
The judge on all four cases is Karen Asphaug, one of many remarkable coincidences.
Well, Asphaug thought Grazzini-Rucki's crimes were so significant that not only did she sentence Grazzini-Rucki to the maximum, a year and a day, but told her to serve what remained fifteen days at a time, once per year, over a period of up to six years.
The next year an appeals court ruled this was cruel and unusual punishment and ordered Asphaug to re-sentence Grazzini-Rucki.
That was in November 2017.
By February of 2018, Asphaug had done nothing.
So, on February 5, 2018, I sent Asphaug, and approximately forty of her cohorts, an email. Here is part of it, "Here's something I don't understand. According to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's docket, there was supposed to be a hearing in December to resentence Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. That was after the appeals court decided that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. After all, not only did so-called Judge Asphaug sentence Ms. Grazzini-Rucki to the maximum even though she had no criminal record but made her serve her sentence a little at a time over six years. But now that this has been ruled unconstitutional, the judge has done nothing. She's on vacation until February 20 and since cancelling the hearing she has not scheduled a new hearing. Did you know that so-called Judge Asphaug called this the worst crime she's witnessed from the bench. That's how over the top she was when she sentenced Ms. Grazzini-Rucki. So, if it is so bad, why has she failed to resentence her and have her complete her sentence? That appears to be incompetence on a grand scale, the sort which gets judges removed from benches. So, why aren't any other journalists covering it?"
I even attached the docket for the case at the time. That's below and it, at that point, had no movement since December 2017.
Two days later, February 7, 2018, the docket was updated for a hearing to re-sentence Grazzini-Rucki, even though Judge Asphaug was on vacation. The updated docket is below.
I'm happy to play my part in moving cases along though it would be easier for everyone, except David Rucki, if they were just decided honestly.
In case anyone is wondering, Asphaug proceeded to sentence Grazzini-Rucki to the remaining time for the maximum amount. Since Grazzini-Rucki was living in Florida, she began serving her sentence in a jail there; Asphaug insisted she be moved to Minnesota, even though there was less than month left by the time this happened, so Grazzini-Rucki was transported cross country to Minnesota were she completed her sentence.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
