How LCDA Helped Get California Legislation Passed

 The article is here. 

New Book on AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

 A link to buy the book can be found here. 

I wrote about the same group- AFCC- in 2015. That article is here. 

Cesar Conde Pays His Success Forward

 The article is here. 

Check Me Out on Pro America Report

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles · Michale Volpe | October 27, 2020 #ProAmericaReport

Inexplicable ruling leads to Tennessee mother being kept away from her daughter for months

(Judge Carma Dennis McGee, sworn in, from Tennessee Judiciary website)

 A tyrannical ruling by a Tennessee judge triggered events leading to a mother not seeing her son for over a year, but that's only the beginning of the story. 

Myra Horan spoke exclusively with me about her story. She hasn't seen her son since police took him out of her arms in August 2019.

The police came because she violated the order below. 

As she explained to me, there is a lot more to this story, and it includes a reckless ruling by a judge who did not give reasoning for that decision. 

Myra and her ex began their divorce proceedings the summer 2016, when their son was five. 

She and her ex-husband mutually agreed to a plan in 2016 without a judge which split custody equally. That plan worked relatively well until her ex met what would be his new wife and wanted to move to Idaho.

He asked the judge for permission to modify their custody arrangement and move to Idaho. 

The case came in front of Judge Carma Dennis McGee. At the time Judge McGee was the chancellor for the Twenty-Fourth District Chancery Court in Tennessee, according to the website BallotPedia. 

She is now a judge on the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 

A trial on his request was held on December 10, 2018, and her opinion was issued later that month. That opinion is below. 

Judge Opinion 2018.12.27 (2) by mikekvolpe

Not only did Judge McGee grant Myra's ex his request to move, she made him the primary residence and even assigned some of Myra's custody time to be spent in Idaho. 

"Mother will have parenting time with the parties' minor child one weekend per month from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. to be exercised in the State of Idaho," Judge McGee stated in her order. 

Furthermore, while Myra was a stay at home mom at the time, she was still order to pay more than $250 per month in child support. 

This occurred through a process called imputing income in which courts are allowed to assign income to people which they don't actually make in order to calculate income. 

Worst of all, Judge McGee did not provide any reason for her decision. While both parents were deemed loving and not engaging in abuse or neglect, she simply granted his request without explanation. 

"It is undisputed that both parties love their son, and the child loves both parents," Judge McGee's ruling stated, while continuing, "Both parties have provided for the children's daily necessities while in his or her respective care."

The judge also noted, "The parties have cared for the child equally for a period of fourteen months since their divorce (April through December, 2018 and April through August, 2017). Father was the child's primary caregiver for seven months (September, 2017, through March, 2018). Mother was the child's primary caregiver for three months (from January through March, 2017). Based upon these time periods, Father has been the primary caregiver for a greater time period since the parties' divorce. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of relocation with Father."

Indeed, the judge went through eighteen factors; these are the factors which the Tennessee code, according to Judge McGee's ruling, requires examining. 

The majority of the factors weighed in neither's favor; the father had more factors weigh in his favor, but a couple more. 

A move thousands of miles away is supposed to be only done with clear and convincing evidence. As Judge McGee said in her ruling, "With the parents living such a great distance from each other, the child will have to visit with the alternate residential parent in large blocks of time, and probably have to travel by airplane."

Myra also told me that the Judge McGee was buoyed by the faulty recommendations of Sherry Pritchett, who was their son's counselor and testified.

In Judge McGee's ruling she noted, "During the counseling period, the child has expressed on some occasions that he wants to relocate to Idaho and sometimes that he wishes to stay in Tennessee."

A recording tells something quite different. 

 

 In the recording, her son says he wants to live with his mom. As such, conclusions from Pritchett like this, "Ms. Pritchett stated that the child appears niore comfortable with Fathar than with the Mother," are also suspect. 

I reached out to Ms. Pritchett but received no response. 

Also, in Judge McGee's ruling, Myra's ex was painted as needing to move to Idaho for better job prospects. 

" Father had no income between August, 2017 and December, 2017. He stated that he could not work during that time because he had lo care for both of his children and could not travel for his job. In Idaho, he believes that he will be able to drive to and from work rather than have to stay away from home."

In his testimony, the father states his current job situation is good. See screenshot below. 

Taken together, Judge McGee twisted enough facts to make what would normally seem like an obscene ruling seem reasonable. 

Myra said she struggled adjusting to the new ruling and it was this desperation which led her to withhold her son in August 2019. 

Once that happened, her ex went to a different Tennessee court which granted him an order for protection and that order has kept her son away from her since. 

Myra has also been active on Facebook. Find her Facebook page here. 

Recently, when she shared a Facebook memory with her son she stated, "And now he sleeps 2,000 miles away and I’m not even allowed to communicate with him cause’ his dad commits felonies. Like perjury, fraud, kidnapping."

One other post is below.

“Not only for the present, but for the future”

This right here should have protected {her son} and I from my ex, his dad.

Digging through some things today.

The state of Tennessee violated the contract, aided in litigation abuse and committed crimes of human trafficking.

While I've seen many victimized parents post similar things, Myra's ex took exception and is now arguing it is a form of harassment. See below. 

Now living in Idaho, Myra's ex got this heard in that state; the hearing was supposed to be by Zoom on October 20, 2020 at 4:30PM Mountain Time. The audio of the hearing is below. 

 

The judge who heard it was Judge Robert Crowley, a magistrate or junior judge. 

Because Judge Crowley started about twenty minutes late, the hearing was rescheduled.

It seems the hearing attracted some attention. More than ten people appeared ready to testify on Myra's behalf; her ex had no witnesses besides himself. The hearing also attracted my attention and so, if he thought this would silence Myra, the attempted order for protection may have created more attention toward the matter. 

Furthermore, the hearing was sealed; I found this curious however staff say that it is policy at least in this particular courthouse to seal all protective order matters because they are sensitive. 

Myra told me she sees this as her ex taking away her first amendment rights after taking her son away from her. 

She is currently living with her boyfriend and they are raising their child; she said she can't afford an attorney and feels that spending money to fight this legal battle would take money and resources from the child she is raising. 

I reached out to Judge McGee and the Tennessee courts but received no response. 

Find an interview I did with Myra below. 

 

 Post Script

This is the second of four articles I'm doing in conjunction with a new organization entitled FIRST4. FIRST4 hopes to build software which would make activists aware whenever a child is taken by CPS anywhere in the US because the first four hours in the system are the most critical. 

Find the first article here. 

How the Pandemic Crisis Has Become an Opportunity for Corporate Diversity

 The article is here. 

Minnesota BAR Goes After Minnesota Supreme Court Candidate Michelle MacDonald

(Michelle MacDonald from her Facebook page)

 The public got a unique look at the sausage, so to speak, of corruption being made in the Minnesota legal system. 

On September 16, 2020, the Minnesota Bar held a disciplinary hearing against Minnesota attorney Michelle MacDonald.

Michelle and I wrote the book "Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial."

Michelle has been practicing as an attorney for nearly forty years and she never had any problems until she took up the Rucki case.

Since then, she was stopped by police for drunk driving despite later having no alcohol in her system, already suspended by the Bar once, detained for a full day without being charged, and even called a "person of interest" in a crime by certain people. 

She is currently running for Minnesota Supreme Court in November 2020 and this hearing appeared timed so that it can be smeared against her during the campaign. 

The first time Michelle was disciplined by the Board, it was for petty issues. Minneapolis Star Tribune describes it in more detail, "The Supreme Court’s suspension pointed to many instances of professional misconduct by MacDonald, including in 2013 when she interrupted a Dakota County judge in open court dozens of times, questioned the judge’s ability to be objective, failed to properly prepare for a court appearance, took photographs in court and other disruptive behavior that led to her arrest."

First the incident they are referring to occurred in 2013 but for unknown reasons the Minnesota Bar waited until 2018 to take action. 

The Bar blamed Michelle for being handcuffed and wheeled in and forced to conduct part of a custody trial, that of the Rucki children, handcuffed to a wheelchair. In the video below, at 1:10:00 she is wheeled in and proceedings continue shortly after that. 

 

Also, the judge who presided over the case, David Knutson, initially brought forward the complaint, something judges generally do not do. 

This is important because this latest complaint in 2020 was also triggered by Judge David Knutson. 

It turns out that Judge Knutson was listening to WCCO, a Minnesota radio station, when Michelle MacDonald, then also a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court, came on a show called "Midday" with Blois Olsen.

The broadcast occurred on October 3, 2018. 

Olson asked MacDonald about the Rucki case and she mentioned Judge Knutson, "Um, the children had run away. So that, that was a civil rights violation even before that happened," MacDonald said. "I have on behalf of Sandra sued the presiding judge. His name was David Knutson and I sued him in federal court. That suit was pending, um, when she was having her custody trial that event occurred."

Michelle is referring to herself being handcuffed to the wheelchair. 

She continued, "Both of their rights were violated the court. What the public needs to be aware of is that I got involved- and I did the case pro bono- is that Sandra came to me and both she and her um= the father not her husband at the time- had no contact with their children whatsoever. Um the judge did that in September of 2012, without any hearing, without any process, and in two hours ordered her, she was already divorced, to leave her home, leave her children there, whom she had custody of, five of them, and ordered her not to return or she'd be arrested."

In fact, Judge Knutson's order said exactly that. It's below. 

G168-1201-0006 by mikekvolpe

This order was signed after a telephonic conference, not a hearing, which neither parent attended. That's below.

G168-1201-0669 by mikekvolpe

That is actually the only references to Judge Knutson but he still saw fit to file a complaint. The whole interview is below. 

 

Judge Knutson previously had the Dakota County Sheriff's investigate a Twitter account which was critical of him. He was recently in the news on another matter as well; he just gave an unusually light sentence to a woman who nearly killed a toddler; she is to serve less than one year in jail, based on Knutson's light sentence.  

In this case, after Judge Knutson filed a complaint, the board appears to have taken its time again. Though the interview- along with two other complaints- all were of things which occurred in 2018 or earlier, discipline was not brought until 2020. 

Normally, such a disciplinary hearing would be held behind closed doors, but in this case, it was streamed live and the marathon session, two parts, is below. 

The hearing centered on three things. First it was the interview which the Bar argued impugned Judge Knutson's integrity. 

Second, Michelle had a dispute with a client where he may have paid $50 more than he should have. 

Finally, she filed a lawsuit against Michael Brodkorb for defamation which the board considers frivolous and since she was required to do due diligence during her probation this would violate her probation. 

If this seems petty, it's because it is. 

In the case of the client, he was a walk-in, a slip and fall, who asked her to look at his case. Michelle agreed to open the file for $50 and then charged him $500 to review it. 

That's what the review agreement states and her client even agreed this is what it states. 

The bar, through their attorney Keshini Ratnayake, argued that the $500 was a "flat fee" which it was characterized as, and that in Minnesota a flat fee means the only fee. 

Michelle noted that the $50 fee was also noted on the agreement and that she charged it first. 

There was a question over what her client understood and when he actually got the agreement, but this dispute goes no further. 

Ms. Ratnayake, in her opening remarks, said that Michelle's transgression against Judge Knutson was most significant because she'd already been found guilty by the Board of a similar transgression.

"The most serious misconduct Your Honor will learn about today is that in October of 2018, as a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court, Ms. MacDonald spoke on a radio program and repeated her false statements about the integrity of a judge, the same judge who was involved in her previous case."

During the hearing Ms. Ratnayake argued that in the September 5, 2012, hearing, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki was represented by counsel, thereby giving it process presumably.

Many people outside the law profession would be surprised to learn that lawyers are very limited in the things they can say about judges.

In fact, here is the rule from the American Bar Association (ABA).

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

Ms. Ratnayake's argument, thereby, is that by saying Judge David Knutson provided her client no due process, she was recklessly disregarding the truth and impugning his reputation."

As Michelle testified, on September 5, 2012, Judge David Knutson held a telephonic conference without either parent present. No testimony was taken, as no witnesses were called, but at this conference, it was decided that SGR would be forcefully removed from her home and the five Rucki children's paternal aunt would move in. SGR was notified on September 7, in the order above, and given three hours to vacate the house or be arrested. 

Judge Knutson's order was temporary, making it nearly impossible to appeal. 

This, presumably, is what Ms. Ratnayake refers to as due process; I asked but she did not respond to an email. 

Finally, Ms. Ratnayake accused Michelle of filing a frivolous lawsuit against Michael Brodkorb, who owns the website Missing in Minnesota."

Michelle lost her lawsuit when it was dismissed as a summary judgment, and an appeal's court upheld this decision. 

One dispute revolves around Brodkorb's repeatedly referring to Michelle as a "person of interest" in the 2013 disappearance of the two Rucki girls; the girls were found in 2015 and four people were found guilty; Michelle was never suspected or charged. 

I say she was never suspected because she previously played a recording of a phone conversation between her and a Lakeville Police Officer, Jason Polinski. Here is part of our book, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial.

I contacted Stahl immediately and read him the riot act. I told him that I was cooperating and he had no right to call me a “person of interest” just because I was Sandra’s lawyer. He has not done so since.

I didn’t know it at the time but Dronen had been in charge of the case since 2014. Not once had he contacted me or Sandra in all that time. Yet Dronen suggested “it was virtually the only one he worked on,” according to a blog post on the case.

The last and only time I spoke with the Lakeville Police Department, shortly before this book was published, they were wishy washy as to whether or not I was a suspect.

I asked Lieutenant Jason Polinski if I was a “person of interest” because a local blogger Michael Brodkorb had repeatedly used that term. When I called Brodkorb out on it as defamatory, he said the Lakeville police labeled me as a “person of interest”, it was reported by “numerous outlets” since April 2015 and he could not remove a label he didn’t assign, saying that “even if the label is removed, it is still accurate to report that you were labeled a ‘person of interest’ in this case.” Brodkorb refused to take down his posts or reveal his source. 

The Stahl refers to Brandon Stahl of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who stated that Michelle was a "person of interest" in one article in 2015. In fact, it was only reported that one time by Stahl and then repeatedly reported by Brodkorb. 

As we explain, once contacted, Stahl stopped. Brodkorb is the only one, especially in 2020, still referring to her as a "person of interest" which is not an official police term. 

In fact, Dr. Steven Hatfill, who was referred to the FBI as a "person of interest" in the anthrax attacks and later won millions for the false label. 

Second, Michelle objected to an unflattering photo which Brodkorb often posted, which he claimed was a booking photo. A still of Michelle holding the photo during the hearing is below. 

This is of course unlike any other booking photo or mugshot. A mugshot is below. 

Once again, Brodkorb argued that law enforcement provided him this mugshot and it was law enforcement who referred to it as a mugshot. 

Michelle said there could not have been a mugshot since when she was detained on September 13, 2013, while she was held for approximately a day, she was never booked and allowed to leave without being booked. 

This led to a bizarre exchange where Ms. Ratnayake said, "I know it is your opinion you were never booked..." but then arguing since Brodkorb asked for a booking photo and said this is what was provided, this meant she was booked and had a booking photo. 

Finally, Michelle argued that Brodkorb would put the photo above in blog posts next to the photos of everyone who was convicted in the case- Dede Evavold, :Doug Dahlen, Gina Dahlen, and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki- and this she argued was defamation by implication. More on this legal term here. 

Finally, Michelle said that Brodkorb falsely accused her of a DUI. She was never convicted of a DUI; she was convicted of obstruction, even though she was stopped for being suspected of a DUI, and later found to have had no alcohol. Somehow, the court found she obstructed the fruitless investigation into her non-existent DUI. 

Everyone agreed that she was not convicted of a DUI; Michelle argued that Brodkorb falsely accused her of it in a tweet; Brodkorb testified and provided an affidavit saying he never did any such thing. 

For Michelle's strongest evidence, she provided a screenshot from her phone of this tweet. It's below. 

(screenshot presented from Michelle's phone of what appears to be a tweet)

Brodkorb acknowledged that @mbrodkorb is his twitter account. RT generally means retweet, so it does appear as though he is retweeting the false tweet from a Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter named David Chanen whose twitter handle is @chanenstrib. 

Brodkorb testifies to this in the last seventeen minutes of the second part of the hearing. 

Brodkorb said he did not know where Michelle got this but that he did not find any such tweet and said he was sticking with his testimony that he never tweeted this out. 

From this it appears Ms. Ratnayake claims that the lawsuit was frivolous. 

The Appeal Michelle filed is below.

B383-1601-0153 by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Below is what I sent to her and Judge Knutson by email: neither responded. 

At about 42 minutes here, you say, "I know it is your opinion you were never booked," on September 13, 2013. I think she would know if she was booked. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBY_jcc2cA&t=21s about 1:10:00 you will see Ms. MacDonald wheeled in handcuffed and chained to a wheelchair. That is from September 13, 2013. That's no opinion. 

Here's an opinion based on fact. Judge David Knutson was bribed in this case. That means you are defending someone as honorable who took a bribe.

Now, if he didn't take a bribe, why do you think David Rucki got 100%, plus child support and alimony, plus sole custody? Why do you think a lawyer was forced to conduct part of this trial handcuffed to a wheelchair?

Knutson has people like you do his dirty work. I'm attaching a police report. This is him asking Dakota County Sheriff's to investigate a tweet. Anyone says something he doesn't like and Knutson can have them investigated. https://www.scribd.com/document/441542723/By-the-Respondent#from_embed

Who do you think you are in this scenario? You're either a fool or budding to be as corrupt as him. I don't know which. Which is it 

Post Script 

This is the start of a four article series which is being done in conjunction with a new organization entitled FIRST4. FIRST4 hopes to build software which would make activists aware whenever a child is taken by CPS anywhere in the US because the first four hours in the system are the most critical.