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"

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Everyone in Dakota County Is Taking an Interest in the Rucki Child Support Matter

(Minnesota Judge Philip Kanning)

The Rucki child support matter has gone from bizarre to downright comical as everyone from the County attorney, to the County prosecutor, and numerous judges have weighed in on a matter of $215 per month to be paid out to a multi-millionaire with four homes.

When last we left off, Minnesota Appeals Court Judge Edward Cleary had rejected Sandra "Sam" Grazzini-Rucki's appeal as defective on December 14, 2018.

He gave Ms. Grazzini-Rucki six business days, or December 26, 2018, to file an appropriate appeal even though he was out of his chambers until December 27.

Meanwhile, in October, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki filed a separate motion to reinstate her license, which the county took great pains to suspend, after she fell behind, with the District Court.

That motion sat untouched until late January, and only after a series of phone calls did the District court schedule a hearing for February 12, 2019.

Her child support case has been handled by Magistrate (a junior judge) Judge Jan Davidson, but Judge Davidson will not hear this motion.

According to Heidi Carstenson, the court administrator for the Minnesota judiciary, this is because Grazzini-Rucki's motion deals with more than child support.

This appears to be because David Rucki, Grazzini-Rucki's ex-husband, refuses to allow her license to be reinstated, but when he fell behind on child support, he was treated far differently.

Early on, in a hearing on August 17, 2011, when Grazzini-Rucki had physical custody of the five children, her then attorney, Kathleen Graves noted, "Mr. Rucki is not paying any child support, isn't paying any spousal maintenance, isn't paying any kind of support to the children whatsoever."

This was heard in front of Judge David Knutson, who would later award David Rucki sole custody and 100% of the couple's multi-million dollar estate.

Knutson never sanctioned Rucki for his failure to pay child support and even ordered that his license not be taken when he fell behind.

Now, not only is the court proceeding with sanctions against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki but David Rucki is not only being represented by his attorney, Lisa Elliott, but by the county, in the form of James Donehower, the Dakota County attorney, who has filed a brief in conjunction with Elliott on David Rucki's behalf. See the brief below.
donehower by on Scribd
I asked Donehower, Katie Bauer, a public affairs officer for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and Melissa Froehle, a staff attorney with Minnesota DHS, why the county had an interest in helping with this case.

James Backstrom, the Dakota County Prosecutor, responded.

Dakota County has received your January 29, 2019 telephone inquiry regarding Minnesota Court of Appeals case A18-1721. This e-mail is the County’s response to your inquiry. I understand that you are asking two related questions: (1) Why did the County file a brief in this case? and (2) What is the County’s interest in this matter?

State and federal laws prevent Dakota County from discussing or disclosing the details of a specific child support matter with someone who is not a party to that action.  Therefore, this communication provides general information regarding the role pubic authorities (Dakota County in this case) have in child support enforcement (IV-D services) matters under Minnesota and federal law.

Dakota County is a public authority responsible for providing child support enforcement services. Provision of child support services by the public authority is required under 42 U.S.C section 654. When providing these services, Dakota County is a separate and independent party to any child support related legal action, which includes proceedings in appellate courts. The Dakota County Attorney’s Office represents only the public authority, Dakota County, and does not represent either parent. See, Minn. Stat. section 518A.47

Under Minnesota Statutes section 518A.49 (b), the County is a party in interest in each case where there has been an assignment of child support.  In other cases, the County can and does intervene in a case to ensure that child support orders are obtained and enforced which provides for an appropriate and accurate level of child support.  The County’s obligation to perform these duties extends also to appellate matters.

We will not be responding to any further questions concerning this matter.  

Only the county knows why they did not help Sandra Grazzini-Rucki when David Rucki failed to pay approximately $10,000 per month in child support and maintenance in 2011. 

Meanwhile, since the issue is now more than child support, a District Judge will have to hear the matter on February 12. 

The District Court judge assigned to the Rucki divorce now is Judge Phillip Kanning, but he won't hear it. 

According to Carstenson, that's because Kanning is on a three month vacation which makes sense since he is a retired judge. 

As a result, another judge was assigned to hear this motion, Judge Kathleen Gearin. Gearin is no stranger to corrupt rulings in the Rucki case; in June, she put Dede Evavold in jail for four days because Evavold had posted blogs on her blog, Red Herring Alert, which offended David Rucki and his attorney; they complained and Gearin had Evavold jailed. 

Coincidentally or not, Gearin, like Kanning, is a retired judge as well. 

Meanwhile, the appeal continues to languish without a ruling even after Judge Cleary gave Sandra Grazzini-Rucki six business days to complete it. 

In August, Judge Davidson issued a bizarre ruling ordering Grazzini-Rucki to pay $215 per month in child support. 

The ruling was bizarre because Davidson did not require either parent to provide income documents and guessed, called imputing income, the income for both. She set David Rucki at $10,000 per month and set Sandra Grazzini-Rucki at $1,449 per month. 

Grazzini-Rucki is now considered a six time felon with little job prospects, so that $1,449 is much higher than she actually earns. 

David Rucki has four homes including the one below. 

I asked Backstrom and Dakota County Prosecutor's press person, Monica Jensen, why they have championed David Rucki in his quest to collect on $215 per month but sat by while David Rucki refused to pay approximately $10,000 per month (what Davidson now claims is his monthly income) in child support and alimony, but received no response.

Though she has not seen any of her five children since early 2013, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's parental rights have not been terminated; coincidentally or not, if they had, she would not be required to pay child support.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

GAO Wants CFPB Involved in Fintech Banking Alternatives

The article is here. 

Why Are All of David Rucki's Apologists and Propagandists Afraid of Me

As I recently described, Jeff Long, Police Chief at the Lakeville Police Department, recently forbade me from using email to file a Freedom of Information Act request. I am also forbidden from using their police services however that is unnecessary because I will not be anywhere near Lakeville in my life.

Mr. Volpe,

Any future emails addressed to any Lakeville Police Department employee will now be blocked.

Any data requests must be made, in person, at the Lakeville Police Department. We will not accept any email or phone requests from you.

Our department will not have any discussions with you over the phone.

If you are the victim of a crime, or have emergency while in Dakota County, call 911. That call will be received by the Dakota County Communications Center in Rosemount. They will

dispatch Police Officers, from the proper jurisdiction, to you. You are not being denied police services.

Again, in summary, your emails are now blocked, any response to this email will not be seen. If you call our Police Department you will be reminded that our administration is not accepting your calls.

The call will then be terminated without further discussion. Any repeated calls will be denied.  Call 911 if you require police assistance. Any data requests from our Police Department must be made in person. 

What is remarkable about the so-called police chief's email is that it continues a pattern from many of the David Rucki apologists and propagandists who I contact. 

Allison Mann

Mann is the paralegal for David Rucki's attorney, who is now an author, but when I ask her questions about her book, she threatens to call the cops. Here is part of a recent email I sent her as well as Long, and Lakeville Police Officers Michelle Roberts and John Haiger. The title of the email is "I heard a Lakeville Cop claimed that SGR was drunk because she spoke loudly and used her hands a lot"

Is that true? I also heard he- or maybe she- claimed that this was based on their training. 

I also heard that Allison Mann put this in her book. Is this all accurate?

Are Lakeville cops trained that someone who speaks loudly and uses their hands a lot is someone who is drunk, because I know a lot of people who speak loudly and use their hands and they aren't always drunk? 

Ms. Mann responded by threatening to call the very same cops I included on the email, "Mr. Volpe, 

Once again please stop contacting me. You are engaging in repeated, unwanted, intrusive communication. This is harassment. Do not contact me again. By copy of this email, I have notified the Lakeville Police."

This was the second time, she threatened to call the cops, the first time Michelle Roberts left me this voicemail. 

What did the email in question say? What was this so-called sexually explicit and offensive thing I said?

So, I guess when David Rucki told 20/20 the kids needed their mother in their lives what he meant was he would encourage his children to sue their indigent mother presumably because four homes and nine classic cars is not enough all while getting a lifetime restraining order. 

I'm pretty sure the quack Reitman would call this parental alienation in any other context right? Maybe he can ask the dead squirrel in his lawn. What say you Gilbertson; is suing your parent a form of parental alienation; does this lawsuit give you a bulge in your private area? 

The reference to the bulge in the pants was directed to Jim Gilbertson who is middle aged but got a bulge in his pants when he touched then teenager Samantha Rucki, one of five Rucki children. Gilbertson is the so-called psychologist which the so-called judge, David Knutson, appointed during the Rucki divorce. That reference is in the audio here.

When that didn't work, she published an article on her blog suggesting I was a pervert.


After 20/20 did its hatchet job on the Rucki case in 2016, I asked some pointed questions. I received one response in the form of a near seven hundred word statement from producer, Sean Dooley.

Find the response here.

They have remained silent since, except reaching out to my then editor to instruct me not to contact them again, here is part of my editors email to me, " I understand the 20/20 reporter has asked you to stop communicating with him. Please respect that. We don't want to write about 20/20...we can mention it where it is appropriate, but again, the point is the information itself and not 20/20."

Remember, this is a news program which dedicated an hour to this story, which asks another reporter to stop asking them about the story they did. 

Regardless of how the email makes it sound, they never reached out to me; like in high school, they told someone else to tell me to stop talking to them. 

Paul Reitman

Paul Reitman was appointed to the Rucki case in August 2013. He spent approximately thrity minutes with Sandra "Sam" Grazzini-Rucki and four of her five children before issuing a scathing letter demanding the court take immediate action to remove the mother from her children's lives. 

That led to a telephonic conference on September 5, 2012. 

G168-1201-0669 by on Scribd

Though neither Rucki parent attended this telephonic conference- neither did Reitman for that matter- so-called Judge David Knutson issued an order two days later forcibly removing Grazzini-Rucki from her home and barring her from having any contact with her children.

I confronted Reitman about this in an email.

Dr. Reitman,

my name is Michael Volpe and I'm an investigative journalist. I've done a lot of work on the Rucki case. You also did some work and were even interviewed in a 2013 story on the local fox you were quoted as saying words like what is the alternative to tell the child to at 10 or 13 end their relationship with a parent. You are aware that none of the Rucki children have seen their mother since 2013. Isn't the end result of the Rucki case exactly what you claimed you were trying to stop. I think that's called a quack. 

My reference is to an appearance on this news story about the Rucki case. 

He responded initially with this, "If you did so  much work did you check the judges decisions,did you check her kidnappping, did you check with Dr. Gilbertson or did you just want to make a name for yourself and reinforce her sense of victimization.  where do you come from."

This would apparently be the same judge who forcibly removed Ms. Grazzini-Rucki from her home based on this telephonic conference and the same Gilbertson who got a bulge in his pants touching a teenager. 

I responded by providing him some documents.

I have a question. 

If David Rucki is not an abusive monster, how do you explain this dossier, 99 pages of documented abuse which you willfully looked the other way on. 

I also like this 25 page report of CPS complaints, I especially like the complaint by then 16 year old Nico, "Nico (aged 16) told reporter today that one time father held a gun to child's head."

You know, Nico who now claims he's never seen his father be violent. 

That's the man you made certain not only has access to children but unfettered access.

Who do you think you're talking to? If Dakota County wasn't so corrupt you'd be spending the rest of your life in jail. You'd be exposed for the monster you are, but mark my words, the whole truth will come out and when it does, you will be held accountable for your role in this monstrosity. 

You and I know the truth. The only way you can sleep at night knowing what you've done is because you're no better than David Rucki. 

He responded, like Ms. Mann, by threatening to call the cops, "I am forwarding this to my attorney.  You are warned leave me alone. Dr. Reitman" He said in one email followed shortly by, "I am contacting the police as I have in the past this is harassment.Dr. Reitman."

Suffice to say, neither the police nor his attorney ever contacted.

Dave Oney at the US Marshals

I first contacted Dave Oney to find out why the US Marshals using the SWAT team raided Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's time share, where she was staying after a flight. 

This was inexplicable since she was being charged with parental deprivation which is barely a crime, presumed probation. 

Oney, a public affairs officer with the US Marshals, issued this statement, "There was a warrant issued by Dakota County.  Dakota County is a member of our task force.  You can probably get more information from the Dakota County Sheriff’s office or the Lakeville Police Department where the crime was originally committed.  There was a Federal UFAP (Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution) warrant in place but that was dismissed once she was arrested in Florida.  She was only booked into the jail on the state charges. "

There was one glaring problem with his statement; the warrant he is referring to is sealed. See below.

Another time, I caught Oney lying again, this time he claimed that the US Marshals were involved for a failure to appear for a non-existent hearing, his response was this, "You may wish to speak with our Office of Professional Responsibility."

He no longer responds to any of my emails either and the Office of Professional Responsibility, the USDOJ of which the US Marshals is a part of- their version of internal affairs- that office also has failed to respond. 

What is the lesson here? Corrupt people, when cornered, either threaten to call the cops or claim you are harassing them.

The other lesson is that all these people are part of a massive and unprecedented cover-up. I know it, I can prove it, and that is what all of them are afraid of. 

Friday, January 18, 2019

I've Been Blocked By Jeff Long, Lakeville Police Chief

I just received this email from Jeff Long, the so-called Police Chief of Lakeville Minnesota.

Mr. Volpe,

Any future emails addressed to any Lakeville Police Department employee will now be blocked.

Any data requests must be made, in person, at the Lakeville Police Department. We will not accept any email or phone requests from you.

Our department will not have any discussions with you over the phone.

If you are the victim of a crime, or have emergency while in Dakota County, call 911. That call will be received by the Dakota County Communications Center in Rosemount. They will

dispatch Police Officers, from the proper jurisdiction, to you. You are not being denied police services.

I don't know why he blocked me; all I did is send him and others an email with the document below attached, with this note,

You all definitely picked the winning horse and there is absolutely no evidence (you are not willing to cover up) of David Rucki being violent. 

Requested Reports (3) by on Scribd

I may be rude but Jeff Long and his entire Lakeville Police Department has ignored decades of violence and abuse by David Rucki. Also, this is not my first tangle with the police force. After another email to Allison Mann, she called the Lakeville Police Department and I received a call from Michelle Roberts. That voicemail is below.

The only cop who should fear me is a corrupt one.