On Action Radio Talking Minnesota Judiciary

Lisa Elliott Finally Files Against Dede Evavold

                                                        (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.

RuckiRuckStateFarmRucki 11-... by mikekvolpe on Scribd

The very next day she did.

Memo.12_17_19.docx by mikekvolpe on Scribd

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 several of 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.

Findings of Fact, Conclusio... by mikekvolpe on Scribd

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. 

That HRO, granted without a hearing, is below.

Extended HRO by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Remarkably, the day after I wrote said article in November 2019, Asphaug quietly removed herself from that case.

Eva Volda Sp Haug by mikekvolpe on Scribd

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.

 You can also find more here.

However, the most curious coincidence comes from Judge Asphaug again.

Judge Asphaug, as I noted in this article, seems to always pop up when a Rucki related matter arises.

In 2013, the family court insisted that David Rucki take care of all his children; the courts insisted this despite his history of violence and abuse:  a bar fight, a road rage incident, threatening to kill his in-law, stalking his ex-wife, choking her, and repeatedly violating protective orders.

He also chased after 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 father stuck a 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.

Grazzini Ruck i Registrar by mikekvolpe on Scribd

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.

ASP Haug Corrupt by mikekvolpe on Scribd

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.

Sandra "Sam" Grazzini-Rucki Erased In Every Way Except Child Support

Even as David Rucki is chasing after his ex-wife for child support, he is also trying to collect on a trust her father set up for his grandchildren.

On March 14, 2019, David Rucki petitioned for a hearing in the Trust Created by First Amended and Restated Albert J. Grazzini Revocable Trust dated November 2, 1999.

Child Support by on Scribd

Albert Grazzini is the late father of Sandra “Sam” Grazzini-Rucki.

According to an affidavit, the hearing is to withdraw approximately $10,000 to reimburse expenses for his children which he paid out of TL Rucki Trucking, a company he claims he does not own.

“Petitions the court for an order to disburse funds in the amount of $10,243.68 to Samantha Rucki from her interest bearing account deposited with the District Court Administrator for reimbursement of college tuition and costs.” According to the affidavit.

Rucki also lists four checks written from the account of TL Rucki trucking for which he wants reimbursement and presumably this is the reason for the hearing.

As I have been describing, even as he raids the trust of his dead former father-in-law, David Rucki is chasing after his ex-wife, now homeless and jobless, for $215 per month in child support. 

Most recently, retired judge, Kathleen Gearin, denied Grazzini-Rucki’s stay to halt child support while the appeals court looks at the case.

“Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings is denied.” Gearin said in her March 4 order.

Even as that is occurring, David Rucki, who received a multi-million dollar business, four homes, and nine classic cars in his divorce, somehow qualifies for Minnesota Cares, which is “a health care program for Minnesotans with low incomes.”

In an August 2018 ruling, Magistrate Judge Jan Davidson estimated that David Rucki makes $10,000 per month; she estimated this because she did not require him to produce any income documents.

So, he has access to a trust from a multi-millionaire, a multi-million dollar business, and receives state aid, but, according to judges in Minnesota, he should also receive child support from his homeless ex-wife, left homeless by the terms of the divorce they set out.

That is not the most shocking part. It appears that Sandra “Sam” Grazzini-Rucki is only a mother to her five children for the purposes of child support; according to a posting her daughter, Gianna, lists no one as her mother.

(As you can see, no mother listed, but simply daughter of David Rucki)

This should come as a shock to the folks at 20/20 since David Rucki claimed he wanted his children's mother in their lives. Instead, he has erased her in every way including from official records. 

I reached out to all the usual suspects. The four Minnesota Judicial public affairs officers- Lissa Finne, Kyle Christopherson, Allysa Siems-Roberson, and Beau Berentson- but none of them responded. 

Jeff Shorba is the Minnesota Court Adminstrator and he did not respond. 

Sean Dooley and Beth Mullen were the two producers on the 20/20 episode about this case and they also did not respond. 

David Rucki's list Rucki of violent acts includes  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

Paul Reitman "diagnosed", by having a twenty minute meeting, Grazzini-Rucki with parental alienation. He also did not respond. 

Laura Thomas is a professor at the University of Minnesota who was interviewed for a local story on this case in 2013; she claimed that, "Mom presents the child with a toy right before the father is schedule to come (for parenting time)” as an example of parental alienation.

Jim Gilbertson took over the case in September 2012. He was accused of getting off by then teenager Samantha Rucki. 

None of them responded either. 

Listen to Samantha's recording below. 

The news feature on the Rucki case in which Thomas makes that stunning assessment is also below.

Gearin Makes Her Move

                                                     (Judge Kathleen Gearin)

Judge Kathleen Gearin finally made a decision on a motion filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

On Monday March 4, 2019, Judge Gearin issued her decision.

Here is part of the court docket,

03/04/2019

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order

Remarkably, the decision comes nearly three weeks after a hearing was held; that hearing was held on February 12, 2019. It was held without Sandra Grazzini-Rucki so it is not clear why the decision took so long.

Coincidentally or not, the decision comes immediately after I wrote an article wondering why a decision had not been made. I wrote that article on Saturday March 2, 2019. 

Here is part of that article.

“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.”

I asked Gearin on Tuesday if this was merely a coincidence or if I was her puppet master, but she did not respond to my email.

I also asked the four members of the Minnesota Judiciary public affairs team- Lissa Finne, Kyle Christopherson, Alyssa Siems-Roberson, and Beau Berentson- but they also did not respond.

I also asked Jeff Shorba, the Minnesota Court Administrator, but he also did not respond.

Background

In October, 2016, Magistrate Maria Pastoor ordered Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month in child support, even though she had recently been convicted of six felonies and hadn’t worked since 2015. Here is part of what I wrote then. (a magistrate is a junior judge)

“Despite being incarcerated, a convicted felon, and on public assistance Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been ordered to pay nearly one thousand dollars a month in child support.
“The order handed down by Dakota County Minnesota Judge Maria Pastoor on October 13, 2016, calls for Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month.
“Judge Pastoor issued the order even though Grazzini-Rucki is currently incarcerated in the Dakota County jail serving her sentence which began on September 21, 2016, for her role in hiding her two daughters for approximately two and a half years.”

That order was stayed while Grazzini-Rucki finished her sentence.

The court could not wait that long; on May 7^th, 2018, Pastoor issued an order reinstating the $975 per month in child support.

Grazzini-Rucki had only days before been released and was still on probation.

This was appealed and Pastoor quietly was removed replaced by another magistrate, Jan Davidson.

Davidson held another hearing; she, without requiring either party to provide income documents, ruled that David Rucki made $10,000 per month and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki made $1,429 per month.

“The obligor (Grazzini-Rucki) is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed,” Davidson wrote.

When phantom income is determined by a judge, this is referred to as imputing income.

Indeed, she has six felonies on her record and is unlikely to find work anywhere, so voluntary is a matter of perspective.

Davidson ruled that Grazzini-Rucki should pay $215 per month.

Interestingly, Davidson also noted that David Rucki receives public assistance despite her determination he makes $10,000 per month; she did not address that clear fraud in her ruling.

When, in September, the Minnesota Department of Health, moved to suspend Grazzini-Rucki’s driver’s license for non-payment, she appealed that.

She also filed a motion to stay, also in October 2018.

The Minnesota court did nothing even though the license was to be suspended at the end of October.

Indeed, the court ignored all requests until the end of January, when a hearing for February 12, 2019, was scheduled.

This may be because the assigned judge at the time, Phillip Kanning, was out of country for three months.

Kanning is a retired judge as is Gearin.

Davidson could not hear the case I believe because the suspension of the license made it above her pay grade.

Everyone believed the February 12, 2019, hearing was for the license issue, but this did not happen.

Instead, Gearin, in her March 4 order, ruled on the motion to stay.

“Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings is denied.” Gearin said in her March 4 order.

This should have been an easy to order to write since Grazzini-Rucki did not even attend the hearing and a motion to stay is relatively easy, but it took nearly three weeks.

The motion for the license has never been addressed and her license was indeed suspended at the end of October 2018.

It’s likely David Rucki paid his attorney, Lisa Elliott, more to attend the hearing on February 12, 2019, than he would receive for the month.

Besides that, he is a multi-millionaire, who received 100% of the estate, including four homes, nine classic cars, and 100% of their trucking business in the divorce.
Remarkably, when the divorce first started- and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki had custody in 2011- David Rucki was ordered to pay $10,000 per month in child support and alimony (he never actually paid it). This means, the first judge determined David Rucki to make far more than the $10,000 per month Davidson determined him to make. 

Still, not only is he chasing after his ex-wife for $215 per month, but he has the support of his county; the Dakota County Prosecutor’s office has filed briefs in this case on his behalf.

Gearin’s order is below.

Gearin by on Scribd

The Rucki Judges Without A Clue

                                                  (Retired Judge Kathleen Gearin)

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.

Furthermore, Gearin and Kanning, I have recently discovered, are wrapped up in another Rucki related court issue.

This involves a restraining order filed by David Rucki against Dede Evavold, for things she put on the blog, Red Herring Alert.

Gearin wound up holding Evavold in jail for four days while all this unfolded saying in court, "I'm just afraid other reporters will report on this."

Presumably, she was referring to me as I had been writing about it.

Evavold helped hide Grazzini-Rucki’s daughters from 2013-2015 and was convicted in relation to that.

As I described here, the conviction only occurred after most evidence that David Rucki was abusive was excluded.

Here is how Evavold recently described the timeline of events. Notice how involved Judges Kanning and Gearin are in this. 

07/31/2017  Served with a Temporary Restraining Order (Signed by Judge Asphaug who presided over our criminal trials).
08/18/2017 I filed a motion to vacate the false Temporary Restraining Order

Judge Kanning

09/29/2017   Hearing Motion to Vacate the Temporary Restraining Order (At this hearing, Judge Kanning rescheduled the motion hearing to 12/13.2017 to allow time for opposing counsel to prepare.
12-13-2017  Motion to Vacate Hearing Judge Kanning continued the hearing per Attorney Lisa Elliott’s request to allow more time to complete collection of evidence.

Judge Gearin

03/01/2018  Emergency Motion Hearing to remove blog posts. Unconstitutional purge conditions were met and more posts to remove were added by Attorney Lisa Elliott. Conditions again were met however, Lisa Elliott filed an Affidavit of Noncompliance and Request for Arrest Warrant on 03/09/2018which was signed by retired Judge Kathleen Gearin on 03/14/2018.

I filed an Affidavit of Compliance on  03/17/2018 and was arrested on 03/18/2018. I was brought to Stearns County Jail and transported to Dakota County Jail on 03/19/2018. I was transported to Ramsey County Correctional Facility at 5:00 PM and transported back to Dakota County on 3/20/2018 for a hearing with Judge Christopher Lehmann. He stated that I would have to wait to be heard in front of Judge Gearin on 03/21/2018. I was transported back to Ramsey County after spending the day in a holding cell. On 03/22/2018 hearing took place with Judge Gearin. Judicial order included immediate release from custody, constructive contempt of court sentence stayed until March 26th, at 4:30 p.m. in order to allow continued removal of posts. If items are not removed by 4:30 p.m. on March 26th, I was required to turn myself in to the Dakota County Correctional Facility for women on March 27th, at 9:00 a.m. to serve the remaining 26 days. (Some of the images and articles were hot linked from the Red Herring Alert site to other sites and data remained on the web for a short time before they were purged from the servers. I had no control over the cached data.)

05/16/2018  Motion Hearing to Vacate TRO. (Almost a year after the restraining order was issued.)

This means two retired judges are intimately involved in two cases related the fiasco surrounding this family with no explanation for why two retired judges need to be involved or why the things they are doing are so bizarre.

Meanwhile, Judge Gearin held a hearing on February 12, 2019.

She held a hearing because Kanning, who was assigned to the case, was out of country on vacation at the time it was held.

But she has still not ruled.

As of now, it says, “Taken Under Advisement” on February 12, 2019.

There is a further entry, “Correspondence Index # 934” for February 26, 2019, but no decision has been made. See full docket below.

ruckidocket2 by on Scribd

This means a motion first filed in October has yet to be ruled on in March.

Furthermore, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki did not attend the hearing so since it was her motion, she should have lost by default.

Grazzini-Rucki was asking for the county to reinstate her license; if she didn’t show, the only obvious order is to deny the motion.

That it is taking this long to issue an order is peculiar, even more so, now that I have found out that Gearin is known for delegating orders to others.

As I wrote here, Gearin delegated another order, “Per the instructions of Judge Kathleen Gearin, as she is involved in an unrelated hearing and unable to draft an order.” Reads a letter written by Jean Baldwin, the Operations Manager for the 1^st Judicial District.

Baldwin was writing this letter in lieu of an order denying Grazzini-Rucki’s request to postpone the previously noted hearing.

I have sent emails to Gearin and Kanning but received no response.

I also sent emails to four public affairs officers for the Minnesota courts- Beau Berentson, Alyssa Siems-Roberson, Lissa Finne, and Kyle Christopherson- but also received no response.

I also sent an email to Baldwin and to Heidi Carstensen, the Court Administrator for the 1^st Judicial District, that is the district where these Rucki cases have been decided.

They also did not respond.

Finally, I sent an email to Jeff Shorba, the Court Administrator for the  Minnesota Court System, but he also did not respond.

I talked more about the Rucki case on this podcast; I come in about forty-five minutes in. 

For a fuller report on it, check out the podcast below. I come in about an hour in.

Check Me Out on Action Radio Talking Attkisson Lawsuit Vs USDOJ et al and Update on the Rucki case

 My segment starts about forty-seven minutes in.

Find more information on Sharyl Attkisson's case with the USDOJ, find articles here, here, and here.

I also updated on the Rucki case, find an update here.

I originally was on Action Radio about the Rucki case on February 11, 2019. That show is below. The Rucki case is in the second hour.

No Explanation from David Rucki and His Band of Judicial Misfits

                                                          (Judge Phillip Kanning)

Judges continue to make curious decisions with little or no explanation in the Rucki case.

Judge Phillip Kanning Mysteriously Disappears

The most recent update is that Judge Phillip Kanning is no longer assigned to the case.

This, on its own, is not news, but the circumstances leading up to and including his departure raise numerous red flags.

Kanning was assigned to the case even though he is a retired judge.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki filed a motion to stop her license from being taken for back due child support in October 2018.

Kanning and the court sat on it until late January when a hearing was suddenly called for February 12, 2019.

But Kanning, though he was assigned, would not preside over the hearing, that’s because he was out of country on vacation.

Heidi Carstensen is the Court Administrator for the 1^st Judicial District in Minnesota, where the David Rucki Vs. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki divorce has played out; she told me as much days before the hearing.

The hearing would instead be presided over by Judge Kathleen Gearin, also a retired judge.

Some time after the hearing, Kanning’s name was removed as the assigned judge, and a clerk at the 1^st Judicial District confirmed he is no longer assigned but had no more information.

I also left a voicemail for Jean Baldwin, the Operations Manager for the 1^st Judicial District Court, but she did not respond to my voicemail.

I sent separate emails to Baldwin and Carstensen, which were also left unreturned.

It’s not clear how or why his name was removed if he was out of the country.

Judge Kathleen Gearin Can’t be Bothered to Issue an Order

Meanwhile, the court hearing on February 12, 2019, turned into chaos.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki filed several requests to have the hearing be postponed.

The judge never actually officially ruled on that request; worse yet, the court may have backdated a letter to cover it all up.

According to the court record, on February 07, 2019, there is an entry for “Request for Continuance needing approval.”

Ruck i Docket by on Scribd

But no order has been entered on this request.

Instead, the court sent a letter  Grazzini-Rucki dated February 8, 2019, but this date is dubious.

That’s because Grazzini-Rucki did not receive it until approximately a week after the hearing.

The letter is dubious in other ways; it wasn’t written by Gearin but by Baldwin on Gearin’s behalf.

The letter notes, “Per the instructions of Judge Kathleen Gearin, as she is involved in an unrelated hearing and unable to draft an order.”

Think about that, she is supposed to be retired; are they really saying the retired judge has such a busy schedule that she can’t “draft an order?”

I posed that question and others to Baldwin, Carstensen, and Gearin.

Also on this email were the four press people for the Minneosta Courts- Lissa Finne, Alyssa Roberson-Riems, Beau Berentsen, and Kyle Christopherson- and Jeff Shorba, the Court Administrator for the Minnesota Court System as a whole.

None responded to the email.

Baldwin’s letter continues, “Your request for a continuance has been denied but Judge Gearin is allowing you to appear via telephone.”

Because Grazzini-Rucki did not receive the letter until after the hearing she missed it.

The hearing appears to be a dud regardless. Lisa Elliott, David Rucki’s attorney, also needed to appear by phone and Judge Gearin would only say, “Taken under advisement,” also entered on February 12, 2019.

There is no update and it’s not clear what Gearin could do.

This case is being appealed with motions being filed in the appeals court simultaneously in which the parties are arguing the same issues.

Any decision by Gearin would be subjugated to the decision in the appeal’s court.

The appeal’s court is involved because rather than ruling on her motion right away, which is customary in district court, they waited months, with Grazzini-Rucki filing in appeal’s court subsequent to that.

Multi-Millionaire David Rucki Gets Benefits In Program for Low Income

Even more remarkably, I’ve recently discovered David Rucki receives aid under Minnesota Cares which is described as, “a health care program for Minnesotans with low incomes.” 

In his divorce, he received an estate which included 100% of a multi-million dollar business, four homes, and nine classic cars.

He is currently involved in at least two other civil actions trying to get money for pain and suffering related to his two oldest daughters running away and being hidden by Doug and Gina Dahlen from April 19, 2013 to November 2015.

He has received money as a result of Gina Dahlen and Doug Dahlen pleading guilty and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Dede Evavold being convicted.

Below is an aerial shot of one of his homes.

Minnesota's Wealthiest welfare recipient RUCKI second of 4 homes. 5 beds 2.5 bath. All at Mn taxpayers expense. He claims poverty in court, per court docs. #grazzinirucki #evavold pic.twitter.com/H1N8qyYI8N

— Jane Johnson (@johnsonmedia2) June 8, 2018

Here is a photo inside his long-time occupied home in Lakeville, Minnesota, an affluent suburb of Minneapolis.

I asked several people about this.

I asked members of the Dakota County Prosecutors office, Monica Jensen, the public affairs officer and James Backstrom the prosecutor, and neither responded.

I also asked Elliott, who also did not respond.

I asked members of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which administers the program.

I asked Katie Bauer, the communication’s director for MDHS. I asked Shaneen Moore, the director of the Child Support Division in Children and Family Services for the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 

I also asked Julie Erickson, a supervisor of the Child Support Division  in Minnesota.  None of these folks responded either.

Rucki is simultaneously chasing after his ex-wife for back due child support.

In the last child support order, the judge, Jan Davidson, estimated that David Rucki makes $10,000 per month; she only estimated because she issued an order without forcing David Rucki to submit income documents. [

Grazzini Rucki Fof Cs Order... by on Scribd

"The obligee (David Rucki) applied for public assistance and currently receives medical assistance." Davidson said in the order.


This would mean that he is simultaneously defrauding MDHS, while using the assistance to support his child support argument.

I also left a message with the MDHS media department.

I received a call back from Tammy, from the Minnesota Department of Human Services, who said she worked with Minnesota Care.

She could not help me, she said, due to privacy issues but said I could file a fraud complaint with the MDHS, which I did.

More information on filing a fraud complaint with MDHS can be found here.

That David Rucki is committing fraud is self-evident- find more information here- whether or not anyone in MDHS will take it seriously is another matter.