GUILTY MN - Samantha, 15, & Gianna Rucki, 13, Lakeville, 19 April 2013

[Trino]

This is not a custody case but 3 felony charges of deprivation of parental rights. How can she deny this when she defied a court order and abducted the girls? I don't see how she can avoid prison time. See story below. Scroll down to read the comment from Nico, the oldest child.

http://sunthisweek.com/2016/03/04/jury-trial-slated-for-grazzini-rucki/

 

[Damarna]

This is not a custody case but 3 felony charges of deprivation of parental rights. How can she deny this when she defied a court order and abducted the girls? I don't see how she can avoid prison time. See story below. Scroll down to read the comment from Nico, the oldest child.

http://sunthisweek.com/2016/03/04/jury-trial-slated-for-grazzini-rucki/

I realize it's not custody.... I also wonder if she's hoping the courts will see her not guilty if she was "protecting" her children. Even though we are being given evidence via MSM to the contrary that the girls are now thriving and need to be protected from her (IMO). To have done what she did - hiding the girls, brainwashing (?) - to such an extreme I can't believe she's of sound mind. Know what I mean? My comment was less based on what seems to be the truth vs. her possible state of mind. MOO and all that!

 

[Trino]

I realize it's not custody.... I also wonder if she's hoping the courts will see her not guilty if she was "protecting" her children. Even though we are being given evidence via MSM to the contrary that the girls are now thriving and need to be protected from her (IMO). To have done what she did - hiding the girls, brainwashing (?) - to such an extreme I can't believe she's of sound mind. Know what I mean? My comment was less based on what seems to be the truth vs. her possible state of mind. MOO and all that!

I agree that she needs a mental evaluation. Are you aware of her online rants? Here are some examples.
http://carvercountycorruption.com/tag/sam-grazzini-rucki/

 

[Trino]

New defense in case of two others charged. IMO, yes, they did conceal the girls. They did not send them to school, really did not home school them by state law (only by their standards). They took them places, but this couple certainly did not reveal who they were, and they certainly knew the girls were wanted. Throw the book at them.

http://kstp.com/news/grazzini-ruckin-dahlen-missing-lakeville-girls/4069686/?cat=1

 

[Margo/Mom]

I agree that she needs a mental evaluation. Are you aware of her online rants? Here are some examples.
http://carvercountycorruption.com/tag/sam-grazzini-rucki/

I agree. Her ongoing belief--apparently despite evidence to the contrary--that the daughters were endangered by spending time with their father, raises the question of whether she is delusional. Being delusional has been found to be somewhat predictive of abduction.

 

[Trino]

http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/Minnesota.pdf

This is what it takes to home school in Minnesota. And, the Dahlens are stating they home schooled the Rucki girls? I would bet my last dollar they did not comply with the required subjects nor did they comply with annual reporting.

 

[Margo/Mom]

This is not a custody case but 3 felony charges of deprivation of parental rights. How can she deny this when she defied a court order and abducted the girls? I don't see how she can avoid prison time. See story below. Scroll down to read the comment from Nico, the oldest child.

http://sunthisweek.com/2016/03/04/jury-trial-slated-for-grazzini-rucki/

It would appear that she has a new lawyer. Should be a good thing. The last one seemed to have issues.

 

[Margo/Mom]

http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/Minnesota.pdf

This is what it takes to home school in Minnesota. And, the Dahlens are stating they home schooled the Rucki girls? I would bet my last dollar they did not comply with the required subjects nor did they comply with annual reporting.

In most states the home school requirements are pretty minimal. Minnesota would appear to be a bit better than some in requiring annual testing, along with some reporting to authorities. I also note that if the teacher is not the parent they have to have some teaching qualifications. By the legal definition--which is pretty minimal--they were clearly not being home-school. So--I don't know who is liable to get charged with educational neglect. Typically the parent--however in a case in which the non-custodial parent has abducted the kids? Don't know what the legal precedent might be there. But certainly parental/custodial interference is an issue. You just don't take someone's kids and pretend to be home-schooling them and not have a clue what's going on.

 

[Trino]

It would appear that she has a new lawyer. Should be a good thing. The last one seemed to have issues.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1605775.html
She certainly knows how to pick 'em. Or, maybe no one would represent her.

 

[JerseyGirl]

ABC News' "20/20" is having this story on Friday, April 8 at 10 p.m. ET.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-sisters-missing-years-lived-plain-sight-time/story?id=38190862

 

[Trino]

The mother only called four or five times during the 2 1/2 years the girls were at the ranch. IMO this shows Grazzini Ruck didn't care about the girls but wanted to punish the father.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-sisters-missing-years-lived-plain-sight-time/story?id=38190862

 

[Margo/Mom]

This upcoming episode on the Grazzini-Rucki case has generated a lot of buzz on the comment sections of various articles.

Here is some commentary from a website that advocates for families of parentally-abducted children--and has been around for quite some time, if longevity counts for anything.

https://underwatch.wordpress.com/20...rental-kidnappers-publicity-defense/#comments

<modsnip>

Also posted in the comments is a statement from Safe Kids International--which advocates for so-called "protective parents," or those non-custodial parents (frequently mothers) who abduct children under the guise of rescuing them from and abusive parent and unresponsive court system.

It will be interesting to see how 20/20 presents this case. I believe that the two girls are now not only back with their father and siblings, but have also publicly recanted earlier statements concerning abuse allegations.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Couple take-aways from the show. One is that Sandra Rucki has no problem lying to the cameras. Among the bigger ones were swearing she didn't see her daughters after they ran and that she had told people, taken pictures, made police reports and otherwise established evidence of physical abuse including black eyes and broken ribs. The first is now contradicted by several friends who assisted her. The second is contradicted not only by the local police who have no record of dv calls, but Rucki's lawyer granted access to 20 boxes of case records and evidence. 20/20 staff spent hours going through it and never found any documentation to support the abuse allegations.

The oldest son, now an adult addressed the issue of how the kids were led to believe that they were abused but just didn't remember.

Not only is Rucki's self-assurance and gall frightening, but even more so the numbers of supporters still willing to back her, and others of similar state.

 

[perfectingpink]

Couple take-aways from the show. One is that Sandra Rucki has no problem lying to the cameras. Among the bigger ones were swearing she didn't see her daughters after they ran and that she had told people, taken pictures, made police reports and otherwise established evidence of physical abuse including black eyes and broken ribs. The first is now contradicted by several friends who assisted her. The second is contradicted not only by the local police who have no record of dv calls, but Rucki's lawyer granted access to 20 boxes of case records and evidence. 20/20 staff spent hours going through it and never found any documentation to support the abuse allegations.

The oldest son, now an adult addressed the issue of how the kids were led to believe that they were abused but just didn't remember.

Not only is Rucki's self-assurance and gall frightening, but even more so the numbers of supporters still willing to back her, and others of similar state.

I got the same impression. What makes me so made is this case is why the court so easily dismisses real abused women and children's testimony. It makes me sick.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I got the same impression. What makes me so made is this case is why the court so easily dismisses real abused women and children's testimony. It makes me sick.

Curious--what leads you to that conclusion? Clearly in this case the children were removed from Dad while there was an investigation, and there was a lot of stuff in those 20 boxes--inclusive of professional evals and the like.

I am personally skeptical of the belief that abused women and children are routinely dismissed.

 

[Trino]

My guess is the boxes contain files from previous cases. Note that Rucki has unsuccessful cases in Carver Co, Dakota Co, against Judge Knutson, appeal o the MN state courts, and to the US Supreme Court. What value they would have for G-R in defending her hiding the girls must be minimal.

Dakota Co Case:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_13-cv-02477/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_13-cv-02477-0.pdf
Note: page 11 (case vs Judge Knutson)

US Supreme Court Case (Carver Co):
https://carvercountycorruption.com/2014/01/29/grazzini-rucki-family-v-united-states-supreme-court/

 

[Margo/Mom]

My guess is the boxes contain files from previous cases. Note that Rucki has unsuccessful cases in Carver Co, Dakota Co, against Judge Knutson, appeal o the MN state courts, and to the US Supreme Court. What value they would have for G-R in defending her hiding the girls must be minimal.

Dakota Co Case:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_13-cv-02477/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_13-cv-02477-0.pdf
Note: page 11 (case vs Judge Knutson)

US Supreme Court Case (Carver Co):
https://carvercountycorruption.com/2014/01/29/grazzini-rucki-family-v-united-states-supreme-court/

Just recently read the transcript from the court hearing on the day that Counselor McDonald was arrested for attempting to photograph the proceedings. Couple take-aways. One is that McDonald's incompetence was evident way before the break during which she was cited by the authorities (and refused to provide them her name and DOB, refused to put on her shoes and glasses or to walk into the courtroom). She spent a very long time objecting to page numbers on exhibits, offering vague objections, insisting that there was no way to ensure that the copy of an exhibit provided to her was identical to the official exhibit being placed before a witness. In essence blowing smoke. Lots of it. Astonishing that she wasn't charged with contempt of court owing to disruptions such as reiterating over and over again objections that were ruled on.

However, also of interest, was a set of video-tapes, from security cameras at various locations, showing Mom and one of the daughters spreading company checks from Dad's trucking company--along with Dad's personal info (such as SS#) in various parking lots. Apparently one of the businesses found a stack of checks and notified Dad. But--who does that, and who involves a kid in doing that?

That alone raises really huge red flags regarding Mom's mental health competence.

 

[Trino]

You asked who does that, and who involves a kid...

Well, the Dahlens who owned the Herman, MN horse farm are two more. But, wait, how silly of me. Everyone knows it's normal to take in two reported missing girls for 2 1/2 years without alerting authorities.

 

[Margo/Mom]

You asked who does that, and who involves a kid...

Well, the Dahlens who owned the Herman, MN horse farm are two more. But, wait, how silly of me. Everyone knows it's normal to take in two reported missing girls for 2 1/2 years without alerting authorities.

Yeah, thanks for the sanity check!

I recently spent some time on line arguing with a neighbor of the Dahlens along the lines of them being just good people running a "program" for hurt kids. Yeah--maybe it was kinda odd for Mom to drop the girls off and disappear for 2 years, but after all, what could they do?

Seems like one of the offshoots of the recent attention to several of these cases is a proliferation of kids posting their sad stories to places like you-tube, where they are picked up without question and reposted as "proof" that Family Court (all Family Courts--as if they are all somehow connected across the entire country) is corrupt, unresponsive to abuse and operating as part of some "kids for cash" scheme.

Now frankly, I'll be the first to suggest that courts make terrible parents, but the antidote is for separating families whenever possible to work out their difficulties as adults outside of the system (and in fact about 90% of divorcing parents do just that). And the reason that courts are such terrible parents has nothing to do with corruption, but rather that they are set up to determine winners and losers. And frankly, it makes me uneasy to see some of these groups spreading kids' stories all over the internet.

 

[Trino]

Oh, to be a fly on the girl's bedroom walls. They are back living with the father and in school at Lakeville High, a public school. No problems reported. So are the courts right or wrong? I cannot get by any mother not contacting either of the girls nor her other children for two years. To me this says it all.