How Minnesota Courts Turned a Protective Parent into a Villain and a Monster into a Victim

Two recently unearthed motions show the length that the Minnesota court system would go to hide David Rucki’s abuse.

Both motions are referred to as motions in limine; a motion in limine was submitted and granted in full both in the Rucki custody trial but in a criminal trial.

A motion in limine, limits or excludes certain items from being introduced.

In both these cases, the items, if they were introduced at trial, would have painted David Rucki as the monster he is.

In both cases, separate corrupt judges allowed these motions to be granted, and this is at least in part how quietly the courts have made sure to cover up for a mountain of abuse that David Rucki is a vicious and violent monster.

Criminal trial

Background

                     (Minnesota First District Judge Karen Asphaug, who presided over the criminal trial)

On September 7, 2012, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was given only a few hours to vacate her home; she was not allowed to speak with her children, and this was all arranged without her knowledge.

The plan, devised primarily by the corrupt Minnesota First District Judge David Knutson, was for David Rucki, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s ex-husband- for his sister to move into the home Grazzini-Rucki was being forced to leave and to move and take care of the five children.

That never happened.

When her five children came home that day and found their mother gone, they ran to the police station.

Four of the five children went to live with Grazzini-Rucki’s sister, while Nico lived in the home with David’s sister.

On April 19, 2013, the two oldest girls- Gianna and Samantha- were first tricked into going to the police station; at the station, they were told they were being forced to live with David’s sister, and transitioning to David.

They were brought to the home in a police car. Approximately a half hour to an hour after the police left, Samantha and Gianna ran. Their mother had been left so destitute by the divorce she no longer had a phone, but they called around until they found someone she was with, Dale Nathan, a disbarred lawyer who helped abused women like Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

She picked them up at a nearby park and took them to her friend Dede Evavold’s house. After the girls described in excruciating detail David Rucki’s abuse, Evavold called a woman she knew, Gina Dahlen, who ran a farm for abused children in another part of Minnesota.

The girls were hidden at this farm until November 2015, when they were found.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Evavold and the two Dahlens were all charged with a crime called parental deprivation; none was charged with kidnapping because the girls went willing, not only stayed at the farm willingly, but threatened to run again if forced to be returned to their father.

The court, in November 2013, would grant David Rucki sole custody.

In each of the four trials, the argument by the defense was to be that they were hiding the girls because David Rucki presented a clear and present danger.

As such, any exclusion of evidence of Rucki’s violence, criminality, threats and coercion would render an unfair trial to the defendants.

What follows is all the evidence not allowed introduced into the criminal trial. 

Motions in Limine (1) by on Scribd

Repeated violations of restraining orders/ and orders of protection

More than ten of the items, involved restraining orders/orders of protections, or violations of these orders. It’s important to note that the prosecutors insisted on going forward, knowing of these incidents. The Dakota County Prosecutor is James Backstrom and the prosecutor who prosecuted all the cases is Kathleen Keena. The office did not respond to an email for comment for the article.

Because there are so many items, best to list them in bullet form.

1)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation issued to him on 06/20/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. The citation was dismissed.

2)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past conviction of violation of an order for protection dated 11/07/2011. The crime is a misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

3)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation issued to him on 07/17/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. The citation was dismissed.

4)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki With a citation issued to him on 10/12/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. Mr. Rucki was acquitted of this offense.

5)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation issued to him on 11/30/2012 for allegedly violating an order for protection. Mr. Rucki was acquitted of this offense.

6)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a harassment restraining order petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and against David Rucki on August 1, 2013, contained in Scott County Court File No. 70-CV-1315408, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order denying the petition was filed or: September 16, 2013.

7)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and against David Rucki on July 2, 2012, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-FA-12-1818, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed on July 20, 2012.

8)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on behalf of her minor children against David Rucki on June 24, 2011, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-FA-111940, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed on June 30, 2011.

9)      For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her crvvn behalf and against David Rucki on June 6, 2011, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1760, including any mention that the petition was filed and an order was issued; and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. The parties, through their respective dissolution attorneys, agreed that this order for protection would be issued without an admission to any of the allegations set forth in the petition and that no finding of domestic assault was made. Judge Knutson dismissed the order for protection on January 27, 2012.

David Rucki and his neighbors

One of the orders of protection related to his neighbors, the Martins; here is that item, “For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a harassment restraining order obtained by Randy Martin against David Rucki filed on September 8, 2009, contained in Dakota County Coult File No. 19AV-CV-09-3394, including any mention that the petition was filed and order entered; and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. Randy Martin and David Rucki were neighbors at the time of the entry of this harassment restraining order and the order expired effective September 8, 2011.”

There is also a police report involving the Martins which prosecutors wanted excluded, “For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past conviction of dog at large dated 06/09/2011. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-VB-l l4161). The crime was deemed a petty misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.”

The crime itself isn’t interesting, except that it was not the only time that Rucki’s dogs got into his neighbor’s yard, and during one police report the Martin’s noted that they were so afraid of David Rucki they’d installed a video camera on top of their house.

In a letter, Mr. Martin said, “On numerous occasions he (David Rucki) has raised his voice in anger at his children. I have even heard him yelling, arguing, and scolding his wife on a cell phone call to her. He truly berated her about being a good mother.”

The Martin’s never testified at the criminal trial, and Mr. Martin declined to comment the one time I reached out to him.

David Rucki Threatens to Kill His In-law

Another order for protection which was not allowed to be introduced was one filed by David Rucki’s in-law Christopher Bye, here’s that portion of the motion, “For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a harassment restraining order petition filed by, Christopher Bye on behalf of himself and his wife Christine Bye against David Rucki on August 21, 2008, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CV-08-2094, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed on September 3, 2008.”

The important thing to see is the police report from this incident. Both had been vying for money left from an estate when the two ran into each other at the hockey rink. The police report picks it up there.

 “Chris said David Victor Rucki was waiting for him and confronted him the second he got out of his vehicle with his son. Chris said David is his wife’s uncle and is one of the family members that are suing for more money. Chris said David has a son who attends hockey camp at HDC and already dropped him off. Chris said David confronted him by swearing and yelling profanities at him. Chris said David made reference to ‘stealing money’.” The police report states. “Chris said he yelled back at David and told his son to go inside. While Chris was talking to me, he was visibly upset. Chris said after his son went inside, David approached him and was nose to nose with him in the parking lot. Chris said David yelled at him, ‘I’m coming after you and you won’t see me coming.’ Chris said David also said, ‘it probably won’t be me (that will get you).’Chris said he turned to leave, and David got in his car and yelled, ‘Let’s go. Let’s go!’ Chris said he is afraid of David and feels David was trying to intimidate him. Chris said he is fearful for his family and feels David will follow through on these threats.”

This incident started as a fifth-degree assault; that was dropped in favor of the protective order which also went away. None of that the jury heard.

2014 Road Rage Incident

Another incident prosecutors kept out of the criminal trial was a road rage incident. They dressed it up because Rucki plead to a misdemeanor. “For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past conviction of disorderly conduct dated 12/02/2014. The crime is a misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-14-8958).

Once again, the police report described the real depravity.

“Upon arrival we made contact with Suspect 1: Troy Lee Witt DOB. 10/07/1962 who was actively bleeding from the mouth and lips. Witt said he was involved in a road rage incident with Suspect #2, later identified as David Victor Rucki DOB 02/03/1963. Witt stated Rucki cut him off in traffic and admitted to later passing Rucki’s vehicle and ‘flipping him the bird’ before cutting him off in return. Witt said Rucki followed him into Cub Foods and parked his vehicle behind Witt as he was parked legally in the lot. Witt said Rucki got out of his vehicle and confronted him by the cart coral, where they both exchanged in a verbal altercation. Witt said Rucki pushed him into the cart corral and then returned to his vehicle. Witt said he then pursued Rucki slamming his driver’s door after he got into his car. Witt said he was ‘pretty sure’ Rucki was completely inside his vehicle when he slammed the door, but he stated he could not be positive. Witt said Rucki then came after him and punched him once, knocking him down to his knees. He said Rucki punched him two or three more times and then walked into Cub Foods.”

Brady Violation

As I already showed, the manipulation of evidence so that David Rucki’s violent past was excluded through the dubious use of the motion in limine was only one way in which the criminal proceedings were a farce.

Another way was the Brady violation, or when a prosecutor withholds exculpatory or important information. It is referred to as a Brady violation from the US Supreme Court case Brady Vs. Maryland.

In this case, the police report from the day the girls were found was not apparently shared with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. There is one critical part in the report. “Samantha and Gianna came down, and immediately told us that they would not go back to their father.  We told them that our first concern was their safety.  I did ask them about the last time that they had heard from their mother, and they told me that they would not say anything without a lawyer.”

If the girls insisted on running if returned to their father, they were safer hidden.

But Sandra Grazzini-Rucki never made that argument, she previously told me that this is because she never received this police report.

Witness Tampering

Samantha Rucki did a police interview approximately a month prior to her mother’s criminal trial; during this interview, she told the detective, Kelli Coughlin, this, “They (her father and his sister) basically said I have to (go to the interview) and I have to be here and I have to recant everything I said and it’s going and that’s the way it’s gonna be- and they made me feel guilty about it and I started to cry.”

Not only was nothing done by police and prosecutors but two additional charges were added to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki after this interview.

Jury Tampering

There were even reports that press repeatedly approach the jury during the trial to get interviews. Here’s a tweet from an observer.

#grazzinirucki case Judge issues 3rd warning #startribune media/bloggers at courthouse covering case. Stop tampering with jury members.

— David Knaughty (@KnaughtyDavid) July 23, 2016

There were also other police reports which could also have been introduced but weren’t: a 1994 bar fight (for which Rucki was convicted, though of a misdemeanor) and my personal favorite, a 2009 incident in which heswears uncontrollably at two and three year olds.

The judge in the last case, when he swore at two and three year olds, was Judge Karen Asphaug, who just happened- coincidentally I’m sure- to preside over the criminal trials of all four defendants (Grazzini-Rucki, Evavold, and the two Dahlen's), something which is totally inappropriate.

Asphaug dismissed that case in 2010 on the eve of trial for a lack of probable cause, even though there were multiple witnesses to the verbal assault.
Conclusion

To conclude, Asphaug effectively ruled that anything but calling David Rucki a nice guy was not allowed, “For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any specific acts of domestic assault allegedly committed against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki by David Rucki and/or any other assaults allegedly committed by David Rucki against any other person(s). David Rucki has never been convicted for assaulting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or any other person.”

Remember, he was convicted of assaulting the motorist in the 2014 road rage incident; that’s how far Asphaug went to protect Rucki.

Furthermore, numerous witnesses, like a friend who watched David threaten to kill Grazzini-Rucki, could not testify.  

Here’s part of the police report describing the choking incident: “

“David didn’t know Sandra’s friend was there and then said he was going to kill her, punch her and come after her for custody of the children,” according to a police incident report. “She didn’t feel he actually wanted to kill her, but thinks he said these things to frighten her.”

“Sandra also mentioned David has been physical in the past. He has pushed and shoved her but she has declined to call the police because of fear of what he would do when he came back from jail,” the incident report also stated. “Recently, David pulled the leg off the organ, placed it on her neck, and tried to choke her.” The organ leg incident would also then not be allowed in.  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was convicted of six felonies. I sent an email to the Dakota county prosecutor, Asphaug, and Alyssa Roberson-Riems, the Minnesota court system’s public affairs officer; none responded to me.

The Custody Trial

Background

                                 (Judge David Knutson, who presided over the custody trial)

                                                 

After Grazzini-Rucki was effectively thrown out of her own house by Judge David Knutson’s order on September 7, 2012, her then attorney, Lisa Henry, recused herself in November.

Grazzini-Rucki struggled finding a home and defending herself pro-se until she met Michelle MacDonald, who took over the case in early 2013, for a flat $5,000, put up by Grazzini-Rucki’s friend.

Please note, Michelle MacDonald and I wrote the book: “SandraGrazzini-Rucki and the World’s Last Custody Trial” about this case.

MacDonald challenged the constitutionality of Knutson’s September 7, 2012, order, but was denied first by Knutson and then an appeal’s court.

The two oldest girls- Gianna and Samantha- ran away on April 19, 2013, as I said earlier.

Knutson still ordered a custody trial for September 11-12, 2013; on the eve of the trial, MacDonald filed a federal lawsuit against Knutson and others.

She asked Knutson to recuse himself; he refused and then, during the second day of trial, he had MacDonald detained, strapped to a wheelchair, and forced to continue with the trial while still strapped to a wheelchair.

In the middle of all this, Knutson also approved a motion in limine, striking numerous incidents of violence from the record.

He approved this motion even though it was filed on September 10, 2013, the eve of trial.

This motion in limine had eight items.

Limine Custody by on Scribd

Furthermore, Knutson presided not only over the divorce starting in 2012, but on all matters, so when prosecutors in the criminal case claimed that a protective order was dismissed, or David won a case, almost certainly David Knutson was the presiding judge.

David Rucki Stalks Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

The first item struck was a police report from New Elko, where David Rucki stalked his ex-wife at a friend’s house.

“Petitioner (SGR) has listed as an exhibit a police report dated July 27, 2013, from the Elko New Market Police Department as an exhibit,” Elliott said in the motion. “The pre-trial order in this matter limits the issues to be tried as custody, parenting time, and child support. The police report from the Elko New Market Police Department should be excluded as it is irrelevant.”

Here is the police report, “July 27, 2013, I was dispatched to (street address on Wexford Lane) for a suspicious vehicle and possible stalker.

“The vehicle was a GOA/UTL. I spoke with Grazzini-Rucki who told  me the suspect vehicle had driven up and down Wexford lane and had stopped in front of the residence. She told me her ex-husband, David Rucki, was the driver.”

This would not be the only time David Rucki would be caught stalking at this address; another time Grazzini-Rucki’s friend found a GPS device underneath their car. The GPS was then traced to Rucki because he installed it in his home.

Here is that police report.

Even though New Elko Market is in a different county from the one that Knutson presided in, he still ordered that these incidents be in his court before dismissing it. 

The Interview

Because of propaganda in this case, a 2013 story by the local Minneapolis Fox affiliate on this case is largely forgotten, but it was the subject of a motion item. The story is below.

The girls only took up less than a minute of an approximately nine minute story. I’m told the entire raw interview they gave was as long as an hour and a half; here is how I described in an emailed question to Knutson and others, “they (Samantha and Gianna) described acts of violence, sexual assault, and coercion by David Rucki in excruciating detail.”

At around the time the story aired, Samantha also made an audio recording which also described acts of violence- including the organ leg incident- and coercion by David Rucki; she also described an act of sexual deviancy not by David, but someone appointed to the case. Audio below.

"I just want to live with my mom; please let me live with my mom." Samantha says at the end.

David Knutson “Interviews” the Children

On February 26, 2013, Michelle MacDonald made her first court appearance in the Rucki case. She filed a motion to effectively overturn Knutson’s September 7, 2012 order on constitutional grounds.

He denied her motion and held a “listening session” in his chambers with each of the five kids; the so-called “listening session” was something Knutson created himself.

Ironically, when MacDonald attempted to introduce the transcript from this listening session, Elliott argued it violated evidentiary rules, “These in-chambers statements of the Rucki children should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.”

The children, as with the local Fox, I’ve been told described in detail David Rucki’s abuse.

This too did not make it into the custody trial, but worse than that, Knutson sealed the transcript after the fact, called sua sponte, after MacDonald ordered the transcripts.

“This is true.  You should have a copy of the seal order where judge Knutson called it a listening session.  There was a court reporter and exhibits in the chambers meeting with the children, etc.” MacDonald told me in an email. 

However, it does seem that even Knutson paid lip service to some of these. Here's part of his decision, "At trial, petitioner (Sandra) testified that she had been the primary caretaker of the children since they were born. Petitioner testified that she would take leave from her employment as a flight attendant so that she could stay home with the children. Petitioner testified she did ninety-nine percent of the care of the children. Petitioner testified that she completely ran the home, did all the cleaning, all the cooking, the laundry, and all the shopping."

Judge Knutson awarded David Rucki all the assets, along with awarding him child support and alimony. He also gave David Rucki sole custody, and Grazzini-Rucki has not seen any of her five children since early 2013. 

Judge Knutson quietly had himself from this case on April 17, 2015; the order below assigns the case to Judge Leslie Metzen.

G168-1201-0626 (1) by on Scribd

That's twelve days after my first article on this story, published in WND.

That story was about a lawsuit filed by MacDonald which described many of the shenanigans which she experienced in the custody trial.

That article was not only well received but picked up by Alex Jones, and his multi-million person audience.

That bit of coincidence- and I don't believe in coincidences- is not known at all, except possibly by those now reading this.

I also emailed questions to the Elliott, David Knutson, and Roberson-Siems; none of them responded.