Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Monday, April 2, 2018

Grazzini-Rucki Case Spins Out of Control


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 fight, a road rage incident, incidents of stalking, once stuck a gun to his son Nico’s head, and chased after his daughter Samantha on her thirteenth birthday.
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.
Grazzini-Rucki asked the “execute the sentence”; by execute, this means to finish the remaining all at once.
The prosecutor and even the probation officer both recommended this course of action but Asphaug denied it and forced Grazzini-Rucki to wait until November 19, 2017 to serve the next portion of her sentence.'

                                                          (Judge Karen Asphaug)
But shortly before Grazzini-Rucki was to serve her sentence, the Minnesota Appeals Court overturned the sentence as too harsh and sent the matter back to Asphaug for her to resentence Grazzini-Rucki and have her complete the sentence.
On December 8, 2017, Asphaug announced on the docket that she was scheduling a hearing. Then, on December 14, 2018, Asphaug, with no explanation, canceled the hearing.
It’s not clear why the second hearing was a “review hearing” since what needed to occur was for a resentencing.
But by this point, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki had been rendered homeless and living in Florida.
She was homeless because in her divorce her ex-husband was awarded everything, along with sole custody of the children, and child support and alimony.
Since she was now a convicted felon, she could never find a job which would be able to manage paying for all this.
She was living in Florida because Asphaug, knowing that Grazzini-Rucki was homeless, let her leave prison without providing a home address or phone number.
She’s also not been required to check with either the court or her probation officer as Grazzini-Rucki maintained no contact with either with no sanction since she left the state in late 2016.
Grazzini-Rucki’s circumstances are so dire she borrows and shares phones.
With Grazzini-Rucki on the street, it’s not clear how she was served.
None of her attorneys of record were contacted.
Grazzini-Rucki failed to appear for her March 26 court date and a nationwide body only (the most extreme) warrant was immediately issued.
Now, with less than a month and a half to serve, Dakota County is insisting on extraditing Grazzini-Rucki, a process would could take up to a week and a half on its own.
Because missing a court date immediately put Grazzini-Rucki into a fugitive category she is being housed in maximum security in a county jail, not a prison, which she said, “are used to break people.”
Had she been allowed to execute the sentence, Grazzini-Rucki would have completed everything in January 2017.
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is currently being housed in Pinellas (Fl) County Jail and has been since she voluntarily turned herself in on March 27.


BobjoneskoolaidSux said...

See now I am a mom, chasing my kids all over the country, father took them illegally out of state- guess what- no warrant for him, no arrest. When you need to find a pi to find your kids and foia different states to see if license there- that is where it’s just wrong. Why not apply this crazy to the crazy I have been dealing with sitting in a Texas court now with my heart In my stomach, my face bright red from blood pressure and shaking. Fear because my ex would easily kill me. Has tried. Kids saw. Doesn’t mean anything. 8 years of this insanity in different states

Anonymous said...

This went on for me for 10 years, trying to reach my children from a powerful man. It destroys. It must stop.

Anonymous said...

The maximum sentence for deprivation is 1 year and one day. From what you say, Sandra has been on probation for at least a 1.5 years. Hasn't Sandra served her sentence already? Why any jail time??

Unknown said...

This is what happens when you try to leave an abusive ex. I know first hand. Court rewards the abuser with everything you need to start your life over.

mike volpe said...

Because it's Dakota County and Judge Karen Asphaug.

Unknown said...

This is what happens when you try to leave an abusive partner. They take everything that you need to start your life again.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure about this chick. I mean, you keep saying she is homeless but these other people say they talked to her landlord. What's the deal Mike? Is she lying to you? I saw some video of her and she had her nails done and she looked WAY too good to be homeless. IDK - just sayin' ... maybe she isn't telling you the whole truth.

mike volpe said...

First of all, if you're quoting Brodkorb that speaks volumes. She has friends and they make sure she isn't on the street but she has no home of her own and is at the mercy of anyone who takes her in including the person harassed by Brodkorb in the so-called article you referenced. She's still homeless, with no money or anything else. That you would focus on that rather the egregious violations which the court is engaging in also speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't quoting Brodkorb just saying that he claims to have talked to a landlord who had a lease signed by Sandra. I mean, if you are on a lease you probably aren't homeless. You said in your story that "With Grazzini-Rucki on the street ..."
There - now I quoted you...feel better?

mike volpe said...

first of all, if you're referencing Missing in Minnesota, you are quoting Brodkorb, since it's his site.

As I said, she has no home. She has nothing. Maybe, in order to stay with whoever this person is she signed a lease, but she's not contributing in any way to the rent.

Yes, she has lots of friends who have developed a support network but she has no home.

She has no home. She can be thrown out any time. She cannot afford to pay any rent.

Anonymous said...

I thought Brodkorb wasn't the only writer at Missing in Minnesota?

Anyway - it sounds like maybe you already knew she had a lease. I guess I just don't get how you can be on a lease and still be called "homeless". Usually you have to pass some kind of background check or financial check to sign a lease.

Do you know when she will be back to Minnesota? I wonder if it will take as long as last time?

mike volpe said...

Do you know how it often works with homeless people? They go from couch to couch and sometimes someone let's them stay for a while.

They're still homeless. She has no resources. You're fixating on a technical point, trying to confuse the issue.

Anonymous said...

I don't know ... I think you are using the word "homeless" a little loosely here. Staying in an apartment by the ocean and being on a lease for years isn't homeless no matter how you slice it. I am a renter myself - does that make me homeless?

mike volpe said...

Are you paying your rent? She has no money so that's the difference.

In any case, you've fixated on a technical point a common tactic of those who astro turf.

I think this article is hurting Mr. Rucki and you've been sent in to minimize the damage.

Anonymous said...

Honestly - I was just curious.

Did you talk to the landlord too? Is that how you know she isn't paying rent?

I don't care either way - I don't have any skin in the game. You and the people at Missing in Minnesota cover this case pretty closely so I am always interested in the competing information.

mike volpe said...

Honestly you were just curious.

You're a cliche.

Everything you're doing was exposed by Sharyl Attkisson in her book Stonewalled.

This is where I stop. You are here on a pseudo-astroturf agenda.

That speaks for itself.

Anonymous said...

Just because someone questions you - doesn't mean they are "astro turfing" or whatever you are talking about.

You seem very offended that I would question your information. I simply saw that someone else reported it differently and wanted to know your take. Maybe you have different information - maybe its better information. Instead of attacking me - maybe you should tell us about what you know.

mike volpe said...

Let's see since you got here, you've introduced Missing in Minbesota into the discussion, their main theory that she's not homeless, and you've tried to steer the conversation away from the article onto some confusing technical point.

That's all standard operating procedure for astro-turf capaigns; I read her book.

Michael Brodkorb couldn't have asked for a better advertisement and I just don't believe it was free.

Anonymous said...

You reported on this homeless thing first. The other site followed with different information. There are no comments allowed on that site so I came to you with questions.

I've been following this case for a long time and I do like to read both sites because I think it gives some balance.

I wish you were a little kinder in your replies.

T W. said...

Anonymous..instead of arguing about if Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is homeless or not, maybe you should ask Brodkorb, Allison Mann, Lisa Elliott and cronies WHY David Rucki still has ex-wife Sandra listed on the mortgage for the Farmington property. According to your reasoning, Sandra is not "homeless" because she is listed on the mortgage, right?? Or is this just another Rucki real estate scam?

Bc we all know that Rucki was awarded 100% of the marital property including all 4 homes, 9 classic cars, a multi-million dollar business, all the furnishings, family photos...and then went to raid not only Sandra's portion of the family trust but also the trust belonging to the Rucki children as well. And let's not forget court ordering Sandra to fork over all earnings including taking money from her welfare check (when she received it for a few short months in 2016 after getting out of jail). All the while Rucki claims he is impoverished but somehow fueling this legal abuse against Sandra while retaining two of the most expensive attorneys in Minnesota.

The only thing "missing in Minnesota" here is justice..and some common sense!

mike volpe said...

The two attorneys being Lisa Elliott, who has represented him since 2012 and Marshall Tanick, who is representing him in a lawsuit where he is suing, among others, a pastor, his wife and their church.

Sharon4Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.