https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/07/david-ruckis-assault-on-1st-amendment.html

Sharons Disclaimer; Also Victim of Restraining Orders must educate the public also. http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/2/Public/Civil/1%20pawlenty%2012209/Plaintiff_Motion_for_Temporary_Restraining_Order___Granted.pdf
Re Deanna Brayton et al 62cv-09-11693

CriminalComplaintstoTomSmith_reMrs ... - Sharon4Council

https://sharon4council.blogspot.com/.../criminalcomplaintstotomsmithremrsdarlen.htm...

Feb 20, 2015 - To: sharon4anderson@aol.com,tom.smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us ... BLACK AND WHITE COURT re Judge David Higgs,Probate Order, ... Mrs. Darlene Winter and Mrs. Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella Both ... Then Higgs states Mrs. Darlene is Incapacited, Higgs wilful neglience to address Restraining Order vs.

THE PROV OCATEUR

Briana Bierschbach

@bbierschbach

Aug 10, 2018

D'Andre Norman is seeking a temporary restraining order against 
Attorney General Lori Swanson, according to docs. A story in the 

@theintercept
 quoted him saying he did political work in her office on state time. Swanson spox has been sending out details of his criminal record

102

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"

Saturday, July 27, 2019

David Rucki's Assault on the 1st Amendment

David Rucki would like to shut Dede Evavold up for fifty years.

The latest request made by David Rucki of the Minnesota judiciary is a harassment order extension request which states in part, “Ordering the current Harassment Restraining Order, set to expire on July 28, 2019, be continued for period of 50 years,” stated a motion to extend harassment order filed by Lisa Elliott on behalf of David Rucki against Dede Evavold.

The motion follows a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in the same matter.

What is most remarkable is that this whole dispute started over a blog post.

That is not merely me saying it but the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which upheld the harassment order about to expire.The opinion, filed on July 15, 2019, is below.It opinion is unpublished, meaning it can't generally be cited.

Opinion - Unpublished (4) by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Here is part of their facts of the case section, "On July 27, 2017, Respondents David Rucki and Samantha Rucki filed an affidavit signed by David Rucki and a petition for an HRO against Evavold on behalf of themselves and David Rucki's three minor children. Rucki's affidavit stated that Evavold engaged in 'online harassment' of his family 'by including false allegations, photos, and identifying information' in her blog. Rucki also averred that Evavold had posted 'information about my family, photos of my home, myself and other members of my family,' and 'ma[d]e allegations that are false but may incite others against me.'"

It continued, "Respondents filed an emergency motion in December 2017, asserting that a new post on Evavold’s blog violated the THRO. Among other things, the post stated that “David Rucki has falsely reported a crime” and included Rucki’s home address. In January 2018, the district court granted the emergency motion and ordered Evavold to remove the December blog post."

Stating further, "“Evavold filed a second motion to vacate the THRO in May 2018, arguing that the THRO was an ‘unconstitutional prior restraint’ and in violation of the First Amendment. In a written order, the district court denied Evavold’s motion to vacate and affirmed the THRO. Evavold appeals.”

That appeal was denied, as I noted.

The three judges who made the most recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision are Diane Bratvold, Roger Kalaphake, and Kevin Ross.

(Judge Bratvold, Ross, and Klaphake, from top to bottom)

Worse yet, they apparently misused previous case law to do it.

In affirming the lower court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals relied on a case called Rew Vs. Bergstrom, but misused.

Their decision noted, “The HRO did not restrict Evavold from expressing her ideas in general—it restricted her from naming ‘any member of the Rucki Family’ in an ‘internet posting.’ In the context of an order for protection (OFP), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a similar limited restriction on speech was not a prior restraint. See Rew v. Bergstrom, 84N.W.2d 764, 776-77 (Minn. 2014). In Rew, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of an OFP that prevented appellant from communicating with his ex-wife and minor children.”

Except Rew, which also had a fifty year restraining order, dealt with direct contact, not contact by blogging, which is what this court trying to stop.

I also described some of the facts in the case in another blog post from March 2018, shortly after she was jailed. Part of it is below.

The whole bizarre scenario started with David Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliott, filed an emergency motion on February 12, 2018.

“Ordering Respondent to immediately remove the entire post titled ‘Beaten Before Born: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Assaulted While Pregnant – Rucki Wanted to Kill Baby Because ‘Wasn’t Perfect.’, dated December 18, 2017, from the Red Herring Alert Blog and /or any subsequent revisions to the post along with any reposts and/or posts to Facebook and Twitter, which is a direct violation of Minnesota Statue § 609.748, Sub.1a;” The motion stated.
Remarkably, the original blog in question was re-printed from another blog; the story originated on Justice for Grazzini-Rucki children, where it remains today.

The motion was still quickly granted and Evavold was ordered to remove the blog post immediately.

The motion was granted even though Rucki has had glowing coverage from local media and national media like 20/20 and it’s not clear how a blog would “harass” him as he alleged.

An email to his attorney, Lisa Elliott, was left unreturned.

That order turned into an order to remove nearly ten blog posts and then dozens. When Evavold did not comply with the most recent order to remove dozens of blog posts, a warrant was issued for her arrest.

The arrest warrant was initiated by Elliott who filed an affidavit in early March 2018: “Respondent has failed to comply with this Court’s March 1, 2018 Order. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department shall issue an arrest warrant immediately for the detention of the Respondent, Deirdre Elise Evavold, as outlined in its March 1, 2018 Order.”

Her request was quickly granted by a retired judge from Ramsey County, Kathleen Gearin, and an arrest warrant was issued on March 14, 2018; but Evavold, while free, said she was out of the state on a preplanned trip at the time the warrant was issued.

According to her neighbor, Evavold was picked up by a Stearns County Sheriff- Evavold lives in Stearns County- on Sunday March 18, 2018.

The Stearns County Sheriff, Don Gudmundson, said any potential violations of the 1^st amendment must be taken up with the judge: “Mrs. Evavold can take those issues up with the Judge. My lawful duty is in Court File 19AV-CV-17-1950 and Write of Attachment 19AV-CV-17-1950-1 which states 'Hold Without Bond.'”

According to Minnesota statute, her violation- contempt of court- is punishable by a maximum of $250 fine and six months in jail, but as Sheriff Gudmundson stated, she is still being held without bond per the order of the judge.

I also recently talked about this harassment order, as part of a pattern of 1st Amendment violations with Jim White on Northwest Liberty News. Elliott's motion asks for a court hearing to hear her argument. That will presumably come next.

No comments:

MOTHERS LOVE CANNOT BE IMPUGNED BY CORRUPT COURTS

Horrors of MN Courts Using Unpublished Opinions Published on Web

17pgs of GobbleGook
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A18-1721
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, vs. David Victor Rucki, Respondent, County of Dakota, intervenor, Respondent. Filed June 17, 2019 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1273

Filed June 17, 2019 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1273 Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Dunedin, Florida (pro se appellant) Lisa M. Elliott, Elliott Law Offices, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent David Victor Rucki) James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, James W. Donehower, Assistant County Attorney, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Dakota County) Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge In this child-support dispute between appellant Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki and respondents David Victor Rucki and Dakota County, appellant challenges (1) a childsupport magistrate’s (CSM) modification of Grazzini-Rucki’s child-support obligation and (2) the CSM’s imposition of a payment agreement as a condition of reinstating GrazziniRucki’s driver’s license, which had been suspended for failure to pay child support. Because her arguments are time-barred or fail to demonstrate a reversible error, we affirm. FACTS As described below, Grazzini-Rucki challenges three orders, filed in May, July, and August 2018. We begin, however, with an October 2016 order, which sets the stage for the later, challenged orders. On October 13, 2016, Grazzini-Rucki was ordered to pay Rucki $975 per month for child support. At that time, Grazzini-Rucki had been convicted of, and was awaiting sentencing for, deprivation of parental rights. Therefore, the order provided that Grazzini-Rucki’s support obligation would be suspended until she was released from incarceration, whereupon a review hearing would be held to decide whether the supp

David Rucki ineligible for public assistance, Grazzini-Rucki has not shown that imputation of that income would have the same effect. “[O]n appeal, error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944).
Inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court. Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982). The relationship, if any, between eligibility for public assistance and the imputation of income for purposes of IV-D jurisdiction is not adequately briefed, and Grazzini-Rucki has not shown that the CSM lacked jurisdiction over the case due to an imputation of income to Rucki. E. Credits and arrearages
Lastly, Grazzini-Rucki argues that the CSM failed to consider some child-support credits and arrearages purportedly owed to her. Grazzini-Rucki asserts that, because the August order reduced her monthly obligation from $975 to $215, she is “owed a credit of $760 per month.” But, at the time of the August order, it was Grazzini-Rucki’s future obligation that was being reduced to $215.
The reduction itself did not result in an overpayment, and Grazzini-Rucki does not cite any other evidence of overpayment. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 518A.52 (2018) (providing that overpayments of a child-support obligation can be credited against past and future support obligations). The credits that Grazzini-Rucki is claiming do not seem to exist. Also, according to Grazzini-Rucki, arrearages “owed to [her] from the time prior to September 7, 2012,” were suddenly deemed paid in full, “without [her] receiving a dime of that money.” Specifically, she argues that Rucki currently owes $62,822.52 in arrearages to her. Her calculation is based on imposing 17 Rucki’s support obligation of $13,673 per month for the months of May to September 2011. But, in an order dated September 21, 2011, that support award was subsequently vacated due to mistake, discovery of new evidence, and fraud by Grazzini-Rucki. When the $13,673 support payments are removed from the equation, Rucki does not owe any arrearages to Grazzini-Rucki even according to her own calculation. Affirmed.

About 43,000 results (0.50 seconds)