The Minnesota Supreme Court, led by Judge Lorie Gildea, has to twist itself into pretzels to carry David Rucki's water. Their latest order shows that.
Order - PFR - Deny (4) by mikekvolpe on Scribd
Even as Judge Gildea refused to review the previous child support orders which ordered SGR, homeless and jobless, to pay child support to David Rucki, the multi-millionaire owner of several homes. she also granted Ms. Grazzini-Rucki pauper status.Judge Gildea has reviewed more than a dozen of SGR's motions- both civil and criminal- and voted against her every time. This, I am sure, is only because every time SGR had the poorer argument.
Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks, of the Minnesota Appeals Court, has also reviewed more than a dozen appeals from SGR, both civil and criminal, and ruled against her every time as well.
As I have previously shown, even as she was in jail, SGR was ordered by Magistrate Maria Pastoor in May 2018 to start paying $975 per month in a hearing where SGR wasn't in attendance.
May 3 Hearing by mikekvolpe on Scribd
That was later reduced by Judge Jan Davidson to $215 per month but all arrears were kept in place so SGR is well more than $10,000 behind.Judge Jan Davidson issued her ruling even though the transcript from the hearing shows she never provided Sandra Grazzini-Rcuki an opportunity to present her case.
TranscriptAugust2018 (1) by mikekvolpe on Scribd
Despite this blatant violation of SGR's due process, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court led by Judge Gildea found that nothing was amiss.They made these rulings despite acknowledging that SGR was jobless, her monthly expenses unknown, and no one knew exactly how much David Rucki made because he was allowed to refuse to submit his income documents.
A photo of the interior of his home is below.
Things may be even more nefarious than this.
It appears that on November 17, 2015, Lisa Elliott and Judge Phil Kanning teamed up to legally steal approximately $500,000 from Sandra Grazzini-Rucki by Elliott helping herself to a trust meant for SGR, a trust which was set up by SGR's father for his children and not Elliott or her client, David Rucki.
Lisa Elliott has represented David Rucki since shortly after his divorce got started. While she told 20/20 the divorce was a "guerilla divorce" the "guerrilla part only started as soon as she appeared.
She declined to respond to an email for comment.
DruckiSrucki by mikekvolpe on Scribd
As with Magistrate Pastoor, Judge Kanning held the hearing without the presence of SGR- are you sensing a pattern here."So, your order indicated that our motion to distribute the funds that were held in my trust account from GFP to satisfy Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's debts and the parties joint debts was granted subject to a stay."
That stay, as Elliott stated, was conditioned, "for ten days, which would give Ms. Grazzini-Rucki time to comply with your order."
Ms. Elliott claimed the conditions weren't met so, "so, on September 11th, we sent out notice to everybody, that we intended to start paying off everybody."
Here are some of the people paid off, "Then the joint marital debts that have been satisfied are a Wells Fargo credit card, 2009 federal taxes, Bracket's golf membership, Fred and Vicky Rucki (David Rucki's parents), and also Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's attorneys fees owed to my office."
In other words, this trust set up by Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's parents was used to pay David Rucki's parents and his attorney, among others.
But Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's attorney, Michelle MacDonald, said it was not accurate that conditions were not satisfied, "Your order was stayed and Ms. Grazzini-Rucki did in fact comply with number one of your order," MacDonald stated, "To my surprise Ms. Elliott, who was entrusted with $500,000, just proceeded to distribute those funds (including to herself)."
She continued, "Your honor, and it makes this hearing completely moot because this hearing was scheduled so that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki could be here- under the guise of your giving her an opportunity to present her non-marital claim to those funds."
Incidentally, how is it that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki had $500,000 in trust and not know it; that is because her siblings never told her and let her suffer for years homeless without mentioning that there was $500,000 available to her; SGR's parents had tens of millions of dollars and she should not be in this position today.
"Well, I respectfully disagree, I don't think your client did comply," said the judge, Phil Kanning.
Kanning no longer has a functioning email but the four media representatives- Beau Berentson, Kyle Christopherson, Lissa Finne, and Alyssa Siems Roberson- for the Minnesota courts did receive an email which they did not respond to.
How did Ms. Elliott get access to a trust from SGR's dad, this is Dakota County, that's how.
"Ms. Elliott connected with David Rucki's parents and did in fact attach a significant portion of those funds and then proceeded to move them here." MacDonald stated.
The transcripts also show that the trust was started in Hennepin County but Dakota County did not care and simply moved it to their county for Lisa Elliott to then legally raid, "I think I explained this to the court, is that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki never got a judgment in the Hennepin County case, it was bypassed, and all of the proceeds were simply scheduled to paid to Ms. Elliott." Michelle MacDonald stated.
Ms. Elliott then noted, "I want to clarify for the record that the money was never made payable to me. It was never deposited into my account. It was deposited directly into the trust account," a distinction without a difference since she helped herself to the money.
Finally, I expect that Ms. Elliott will soon file a motion to hold Ms. Grazzini-Rucki in contempt of court for failure to pay child support. The intention is to have her thrown in jail because as David Rucki told a trusted associated, "She (SGR) will be in jail by fall," it is fall.
1 comment:
Have you ever heard of the $1.00 protest method. Probably not since, we have discovered the way to force the court to do its job. Every month, or Week whatever, your child support order states, you simply obtain a money order and on the back you place the words under the signature line..."this payment is being made under protest not to be construed as payment for a valid obligation." This places you in compliance with the court order and you cannot be jailed for paying something. Unless & Until you can obtain a Transfer to Equity/Probate for an Evidentiary Hearing and Proper Accounting, if I were in your shoes, I would use this methodology until the court issues the transfer. Its a 3 denial process (according to jewish law) but this entitles you t a mandate under one of these 2 cases. McCartney Ex Rel McCartney v. Cansler - pre-deprivation hearings and/or Anderson Et Al v. Liberty Lobby Inc., post deprivation hearings. If your case contains elements of fraud, i.e. financial fraud - fraudulent transfers; fraud upon the court etc., you will also want to file a Notice of Special Appearance from that point forward. Add to this a Notice of Motion to Vacate/Dismiss the Order; Decree or Judgment for fraud upon the court under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) and fro what I can tell Your Right to Honest Services fraud in the factum is clearly evident, related to the absconded theft of your trust funds. Find the first defect in the case and the fraud will reveal itself then, prosecute the fraud in the factum. Honest Services Fraud is covered under Exec. Ord. 13844 formerly 13520 which also violates Public Policy and also violates the Emoluments clause as well as the Commerce clause. God Speed!
Post a Comment