STATE OF MINNESOTA IN APPEALS COURT State of Minnesota, Respondent v. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Appellant. APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT STEVEN P. RUSSETT. Assistant State Public Defender Atty. No, 016126 Office of the Appellate Public Defender 540 Fairview Avenue North, Suite #300 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 201-6700 ATTORNEY GENERAL LORI SWANSON 1800 Bremer Tower 445 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 296-6196 REPLY BRIEF, ADDENDUM. ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT JAMES BACKSTROM Dakota County Attorney 1560 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 (651) 438-4438 KATHRYN M, KEENA Assistant County Attorney 1560 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 (651) 438-4438,TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) TABLE OF CONTENTS... TABLE OF AUTHORITIES A REPLY STATEMENT OF FACTS... ws REPLY POINTS RELIED ON.. POINT I ~APPELLANT WAS DENIED HER SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL... POINT II - THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY EXCLUDING EVIDEDENCE CRITICAL TO GRAZZINI-RUCKI’S DEFENSE wld A. Prohibited any specific acts of domestic assault allegedly committed against Appellant, children and/or any other assaults allegedly committed by David Rucki against any other person(s) in B. Evidence related to orders for protection filed by Appellant on behalf of her minor children against David Rucki were also denied as orders dismissing the petitions were filed. . C. The state allowed false statements to be put into the court record D. The district court refused Appellant her 6" amendment right to confront her accuse! : a E. The district court improperly instructed the jury. F. It is an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to allow the 2.5 hour, unedited Fox 9 newscast involving the Grazzini-Rucki case, and featuring interviews with SVR and GJR taken shortly after they ran away, into evidence...22 123 G, Social Service Records (p. 17-18) .POINT III —THE PROSECUTOR DID COMMITT MISCONDUCT DURING HER CLOSING ARGUMEN’ Prosecutorial Misconduct A. The Dakota County Attomey’s Office attempted to seek an advantage in a lawsuit by cultivating or influencing media attention to support their case. (See Appendix 2 I Media Excerpts for examples of this)... @ The trial judge must be aggressively involved in media management to ensure the constitutionally protected rights of the defendant to a fair trial and the socictal right to justice in a properly conducted trial ...nses sevens . 28 2 . Prosecutors in a court of law do not represent the victims, they represent the state. D. A prosecutor cannot align herself exclusively with the victim. E. Ms. Keena’s conduct was clearly erroneous and clearly intended to cause prejudice to the administration of justic« 28 POINT IV - THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING EXECUTION OF APPELLANT’S SENTENC! 28 POINT V - BASED ON THE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY THIS APPEAL HAS DEMONSTRATED SERIOUS ERROR BY THE COURTS: THAT HAS PREVENTED APPELLANT FROM RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL A. Witness Tampering / Jury Tampering... CONCLUSION. CERTIFICATION OF BRIEF LENGTH...TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE(S) Minnesota Statutes and Rules: Minn. R. P. 26.03, subd. 8... 10 Minn. R, Evid. 609..... Minn, R. Evid. 609(a)(1).... Minn. R. Evid. 609(@)(2) eens Rule 404(a)(3).. Rule 608(@)... Rule 801(4)(1)(B).... Cas State v. Grunig, 660 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Minn, 2003)... State v. Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 551 (Minn. 1987)... In re Welfare of L.E.P, 594 N.W.2d 163, 168 (Minn. 1999).. Landers v. Smith, 379 S.W.2d 884, 887 (S.D. Mo. App. 1964) State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008) State v. Jordan, 742 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Minn. 2007)...... State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn, 2005)... State v. Lemert, 843 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. 2014)...... Simon v. Carroll, 241 Minn, 211, 220, 221, 62 N.W.2d 822, 828, 829 (1954)... State v. Kahner, 217 Minn, 574, 582, 15 N.W.2d 105, 109 (1944) In re Salmen, 484 N.W.2d 253, 254 (Minn.1992)..State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn. 1992) ... California vy, Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984). Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967). State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 866 (Minn, App. 1995) In re Brizzi*, 962 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind. 2012)....., Other Authorities American Bar Association Model Rule 3.6 .. Model Rule 3.8(f)... Model Rule 8,2 Model Rule 8.4 Model Rule 3.6(a)REPLY STATEMENT OF FACTS improper for the State to use what is meant to be a neutral section of the brief to begin their arguments, The trial may begin with opening statements, and with that, interpretation of the facts of the case, but opening statements do not belong in the Statement of Facts, For example: (p.2-3) The Statement of Facts includes statements that SVR and. GIR ran away from the care of paternal aunt Tammy Love on April 19, 2013 and were reported as runaways to police. The Statement of Facts also provides a reason why SVR. and GIR ran away “According fo Love, SVR and GIR were upset about living arrangements,” Appellant argued at trial that the girls ran away because they felt their current living situation was unsafe. The State refutes the runaway theory in the next paragraphs of the Statement of Facts by cherry picking the facts of the case and interpreting information to portray the actions, and intent, of Appellant in a criminal light; and thereby, discrediting the affirmative defense she raised, Statements like these, and others, contained in the Statement of Facts are intrinsically argumentative because the Respondent is defending their case, and characterizing evidence to their favor. The right of Respondent to offer additional facts does not give the State the right to transform. a statement of facts into an argument. The Statement of Faets provided by the State are deceptively characterized and rely on hearsay, inaccurate statements and omitted evidence and information in the record.Exception to Forfeiture/Failure to Raise Claim. “A respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there are sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” State v, Grunig, 660 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Minn. 2003). ‘The standard for critical impact is that “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” State v. Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 551 (Minn, 1987) (clarifying critical impact standard), “When analyzing critical impact, an appellate court should first examine all the admissible evidence available to the state in order to determine what impact the absence of the suppressed evidence will have, The analysis should not stop there however. The court should go on to examine the inherent qualities of the suppressed evidence itself, its relevance and probative force, its chronological proximity to the alleged crime, its effect in filling gaps in the evidence viewed as a whole, its quality as a perspective of events different than those otherwise available, its clarity and amount of detail and its origin. Suppressed evidence particularly unique in nature and quality is more likely to meet the critical impact test.” Jn re Welfare of L_E.P., 594 N.W.2d 163, 168 (Minn. 1999) (citations omitted), Suppression of a child’s statements describing alleged sexual abuse meets the critical impact test when the child is found incompetent to testify. Id. Additionally, the subject of this appeal involves a criminal matter — and not a divoree/custody matter. The State is attempting to re-litigate the Grazzini-Rucki v, Rucki divorce/custody case through the statement of facts, which amounts to 7malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution refers to a criminal or civil case that is {filed without an adequate basis and for an improper purpose, such as harassing the defendant, ruining another person's reputation, or to knowingly place blame on someone other than the actual wrongdoer. ‘The facts, and procedural history, of the divorce/custody proceedings is not an issue in the criminal matter. Further, the statement of an attorney, in an appeal, cannot be used as a replacement for evidence in the record, even if the appellate court has no reason to disbelieve the statement, Landers v, Smith, 379 8.W.2d 884, 887 (S.D. Mo. App. 1964). 1 object to the State's entire statement of the case. REPLY POINTS RELIED ON POINT. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HER SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. ‘The State contradicts their own statements and has failed to make a clear. and convineing case that counsel's performance was objectively reasonable,One the hand the State asserts that counsel did not present the defense, in other statements the State asserts that counsel's performance was effective, Regarding Fox 9 Newscast (p. 13-15): The State argues that the video should have been. suppressed because “Appellant failed to lay adequate foundation for the introduction of the video and it was not admissible on that basis alone, Despite that, the district court was still willing to allow Appellant to testify about its contents as it pertained to her defense, something Appellant opted not to do for reasons unknown,” (p. 15). The State's argument reinforces Appellant's claim that her counsel was ineffective; and shows thedisastrous results those failures caused to her defense. By its own admission, even the State is baffled by the behavior of counsel who opted “for reasons unknown” to not allow Appellant to speak about a video she fought so hard to include as evidence. GPS Tracker (p. 15-17) The State offers statements regarding the behavior of Appellant's counsel, and his handling of the GPS Tracker information as potential evidence, that again demonstrate ineffective counsel. Statements are based on the State's firsthand knowledge, and observation in the court room, adds particular weight to this issue. Specifically: «Trial counsel makes conflicting statements about the relevance of GPS tracker and is unable to communicate factual information, supported by evidence, that Appellant has presented to him. © Trial counsel withdraws Appellant's request to have the GPS tracker information submitted as evidence (against her will) and later attempts to reintroduce the GPS tracker information as evidence. State notes that “trial counsel slightly changed his argument...” (yet again!) (p. 16) ' «State offers an example of serious error by trial counsel that clearly demonstrates ineffective counsel (p. 16),"/ntroducing the GPS evidence would have necessitated calling Rhedin as a witness, Trial counsel included Rhedin as a witness in his disclosure; however, at some point, the decision was made that Rhedin was not going to testify and he was present in the courtroom throughout the entire trial. In response to trial counsel's argument, the district court 9pointed out that a sequestration order had been issued pursuant to Minn, R. P. 26.03, subd, 8 and that despite Rhedin being on Appellant's witness list, rial counsel elected to allow Rhedin be in the courtroom the entire proceeding. (TT 760).” Contradictory remarks made by counsel in combination with procedural errors resulted in the district court denying the admission of the GPS Tracker information as evidence, As such, Appellant was not allowed to present evidence that helped to lay the foundation for the affirmative defense she raised. Such serious procedural mistakes made by trial counsel, such as these described by the State, qualify as ineffective counsel, and is grounds for appeal because counsel made errors so serious Appellant was déprived of a fair trial. POINT I. - THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY EXCLUDING EVIDENCE CRITICAL TO GRAZZINI-RUCKP’S DEFENSE A. Co-Defendant Deirdre Evavold received 12 times the evidence as Appellant. B, Prosecutor's Response - Motion in limine Prohibited introduction of evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts by any witness called by the State without a prior specific ruling allowing the introduction of that evidence. Prohibited any specific acts of domestic assault allegedly committed against Appellant, children and/or any other assaults allegedly committed by David Rucki against any other person(s), The court stated that David Rucki has never been convicted for assaulting appellant or any other person, Accordingly, the evidence is not admissible under Minn. R.Evid. 609. 10The state does not point out is that David Rucki has been convicted of such crimes and has pléad guilty on charges of violating and order for protection and domestic assault. David Rucki also was ordered on 3 separate occasions to anger management classes and a full 8 week course of Domestic violence classes, all stemming from domestic abuse & assault and battery charges. ‘The state made it clear that they were protecting a very abuses man David Rucki and if the Jury and Public had been been aware of just some of his charges (see below) they could never convict the mother from protecting her children David Rucki has a history of violence over in 3 different States and 4 different counties in MN. 1. Foran order prohibiting introduction of evidence of any prior crimes, wrongs, or acts by any witness called by the State, without a prior, specific ruling allowing introduction of the evidence. 2. For an order excluding evidence of the character of any witness called by the State, other than his or her character for truthfulness. 3. For an order prohibiting Defendant from trying to cross-examine witnesses regarding prior unrelated acts or introduce extrinsic evidence of any prior unrelated acts not part of the present case when attempting to attack witness's’ character for truthfulness. 4. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past conviction of dog at large dated 06/09/2011. (See Dakota County Court File No. 119AV-VB-1 14161). The crime was deemed a petty misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn, R. vid, 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn, R. Evid, 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, 5. Foran order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation issued to him on 06/20/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. The citation was dismissed, (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-IL-11288). 6. Foran order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his, past conviction of violation of an order for protection dated 11/07/2011. The crime is a misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn, R. Evid, 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, Furthermore. the conviction is not admissible under Minn, R. Evid, 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement. (See Dakota County Court File No. I9AV-CR- 11-14682). 7. Foran order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation issued to him on 07/17/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. The citation was dismissed. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-11-14179). 8. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki With a citation issued to him on 10/12/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection, Mr. 2Rucki was acquitted of this offense, (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-12- 1215), 9. For an order prohibiting Defendant from Impeaching David Rucki for his past conviction of failure to extinguish a fire dated 12/11/2012. (See Dakota County Court File No, 9AV-VB-2-20506, The crime was deemed a petty misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn, R. Evid, 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment In excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement. 10, For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation issued to him on 11/30/2012 for allegedly violating an order for protection. Mr. Rucki was acquitted of this offense. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-12- 24812), 11, Foran order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past conviction of disorderly conduct dated 12/02/2014, The crime is a misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid, 609(a)(2) because itis not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-14-8958). 12, Foran order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a harassment restraining order petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and against David Rucki on August 1, 2013, contained in Scott County Court File 3BNo. 70-CV-1315408, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon in support of the petition, An order denying the petition was filed on September 16, 2013. 13, For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and against David Rucki on July 2, 2012, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV- FA-12-1818, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed on July 20, 2012. 14, For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on behalf of her minor children against David Rucki on June 24, 2011, contained in Dakota County Court File No, 19AV-FA-111940, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition, An order dismissing the petition was filed on June 30, 2011 15. Foran order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and against David Rucki on June 6, 2011, contained in Dakota County Court File No. I9AV- FA-11-1760, including any mention that the petition was filed and an order was issued; and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. The parties, through their respective dissolution attorneys, agreed that this order for protection would be issued without an admission to any of the allegations set forth in the “petition and that no finding of domestic assault was made, Judge Knutson dismissed the order for protection on January 27, 2012 16. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related toa harassment restraining order obtained by Randy Martin against David Rucki filed on September 8, 2009, contained in Dakota County Court File No, 19AV-CV-09-3394, including any mention that the petition was filed and order entered; and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition, Randy Martin and David Rucki were neighbors at the time of the entry of this harassment restraining order and the order expired effective September 8, 2011. 17. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a harassment restraining order petition filed by, Christopher Bye on behalf of himself and his wife Christine Bye against David Rucki on August 21, 2008, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CV-08-2094, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed on September 3, 2008, 18. Foran order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any specific acts of domestic assault allegedly committed against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki by David Rucki and/or any other assaults allegedly committed by David Rucki against any other person(s), David Rucki has never been convicted for assaulting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or any other person. Accordingly, the evidence is not admissible under Minn, R. Evid. 609, 15,19. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any opinion or reputation evidence concerning David Rucki based on any alleged assaultive behavior against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or any other person(s). Rule 404(a}(3) provides: Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (3) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness as, provided in rules 607, 608, and 609. Minn, R. Evid, 404(a)(3). Rule 608(a) addresses the Rule 404(a)(3) exception and provides in pertinent part: 20. ‘The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence other otherwise. During the criminal trial at the same time SGR was in courtroom below, David Rucki was making an appearance in the same courthouse in a different courtroom for child support. He threatened the process server, Michael Rhedin, who was serving a subpoena for David Rucki’s daughter to testify in the criminal trial, During the interaction, David Rucki threatened Rhedin and challenged him repeatedly to a fight. While in the courtroom after this confrontation, David Rucki then threatened Michelle MacDonald, Defendant’s attorney for the child custody matter, ““Cops are circling you, cops are circling you,” Rucki told MacDonald, according to 16the police report she filed later, “I’m going to destroy you; I’m coming for you.” DVR then again during ‘Trial approached Attorney Michelle Macdonald in the parking lot of the Court house and threatened her again.. both the process server and MM filed police reports . Judge Asphaug refused to allow these in the trial. 21. David Rucki, through his attorney Marshall Tanick, sent threatening letters within months of SGR Trial to parties then on the witness list and all co- defendants- Deidre Evavold, Doug Dahlen and Gina Dahlen. This behavior was allowed by the court- Judge Karen Asphaug- with impunity and everi after Defendant complained to the court- Asphaug refused. The court indicated that citations for violating Orders for Protection for which there's an acquittal is not allowed, Also stated that the disorderly conduct is with the neighbors, as it didn't involve Appellant. It involved an incident in a parking lot and road rage instigated by DVR with some unknown person making it irrelevant Harassment Restraining Orders were not allowed as these orders had expired. Crimes deemed petty misdemeanors not admissible under Minn, R. Evid, 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn, R, Evid, 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statements. Evidence related to orders for protection filed by Appellant on behalf of her minor children against David Rucki were also denied as orders dismissing the petitions were filed. 7Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except (3) Character of witness, Evidence of the character of a witness as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609. Minn. R. Evid, 404(a)(3). Rule 608(a) addresses the Rule 404(a)(3) exception and provides in pertinent part: The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion o reputation evidence or otherwise. Minn. R. Bvid. 608(a) because any such opinion or reputation does not refer to the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district coutt’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”” State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn, 2008) (quoting State v. Jordan, 742 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Minn, 2007)). ‘The standard of review of pretrial suppression ruling is de novo on the legal issue of whether a search was justified by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and clearly erroneous on the district court’s findings of fact. State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn, 2005). Where the facts are undisputed, “our review is entirely de novo.” Id. But 18see State v, Lemert, 843 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. 2014) (“This case was submitted to the district court on stipulated facts, and we review de novo whether the stipulated facts were sufficient to provide the officer with a reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a pat search of Lemert.”). (Amended effective January 1, 1990; amended effective September 1, 2006.) C. — Audio recordings and written affidavits from SVR and GJR after they ran away stating the abuse were sealed and Judge Asphaug denied their inclusi trial. D. Motion to Stay filed in Appellate Court by Defendant on April 19, 2013 at 9:30AM- with a copy given to Judge David Knutson that included evidence of the abuse , yet 6 hours after receiving this Appeal Judge Knutson issues a order for ‘Tammy Love to get all the children this was also exeluded by Judge Karen Asphaug at the criminal trial, E. _ Initially Dale Nathan was touted by Plaintiff as their star witness- claiming Nathan would corroborate their case- but DN stated that he was going to collaborate the defendant, Documents where DN spoke about the abuse the children by DVR and TJL where DN spoke first hand on what their children told him that day April 19th 2013 .after he died, the prosecution and Judge denied to allow the rated the defendant. evidence of DN testimony in that would have exon F, Defendants requested and was denied recordings and evidence from Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions (BCA). G. All five children testified in front of Judge David Knutson detailing the abuse prior to Judge David Knutson issuing sole custody to David Rucki, Efforts to unseal this testimony were denied by Judge Karen Asphaug 19Committee Comment - 1977 ‘The rule permits impeachment by means of reputation or opinion evidence. Tradit nally, Minnesota has distinguished between opinion and reputation when dealing with the issue of credibility, Reputation testimony has been permitted but personal opinion has been excluded. See Simon v, Carroll, 241 Minn. 211, 220, 221, 62 N.W.2d 822, 828, 829 (1954); State v. Kahner, 217 Minn. 574, 582, 15 N.W.2d 105, 109 (1944). However, since the Minnesota courts permit the witness to testify as to whether he would believe the testimony which the impeached witness would give under oath, Minnesota courts come very close to permitting opinion testimony as to credibi It is clear that appellant was not given the chance to meaningfully respond to plaintiff's allegations and was never permitted to present evidence, including witnesses or documents she believed supported her defense, These prior acts showed a predisposition of violence, and a history of violence committed by Rucki, and are an important aspect to the affirmative defense Appellant raised By suppressing 80% of defense evidence the district court significantly prejudiced Appellant and denied her of a fair trial, by depriving her of the right to go to the jury with a complete affirmative defense. C. The state allowed false statements to be put into the court record SVR's testimony in court was different than her previously made statements, On the video, SVR told the Court she was not told to "recant", She also claimed to not remember the incident with the organ leg and said her dad never hit anyone. S VR. 20further testified she never saw any abuse and perhaps her father only shoved her mother a few times, LAKEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT CASE/INCIDENT NUMBER 13001278 STATEMENT Date; 06/30/2016 Time: 0900 Hours Location: Lakeville Police Dept. Statement of: Samantha Rucki Statement taken by: Det, Kelli Coughlin Transcribed by: K. Parranto Q: Det. Kelli Coughlin A: Samantha Rucki Q: Ok you are in a really tough spot and J totally understand that, Um no kid should ever have to be in this spot and you are ina tough one. But we are looking to see kind of what happened and how we got to this point, And I, my heart breaks for you Sam, it really does. Are you being forced to be here? A: No but it's definitely not on free will Choice: Q: Ok what do you mean by that? A: They basically said I have to, and I have to be here and I have to recant everything I said and it's gonna and that’s the way its gonna have to be and they made me feel really guilty about not doing it, I started erying Q: Ok, who is they? A: My dad and Tammy, Q: Ok, ok. Well I just want to make sure that you are not here against your will, ok. And I don't want t © make you say anything that's not true and T want, I just, [just want, want the truth and I don't want anyone to put words in your mouth. So this is kind of like your chance to tell the story on what happened, the true story, just so we have the truth out there because you know some other people might say other things and which might not be the truth and only know the truth. And I know you don't want to get your mom in trouble and I know you don't want to get your dad in trouble, But we're just looking to see how we got to this point. In the same police interview with Coughlin, Samantha stated, “I’m not a fan of Judge Knutson, I don’t want to hear about that guy,” she said, “Honestly. He made such. 2bad decisions and it’s not even, he should I don’t care what you guys want to say to that, The decisions made by whoever in the court were so horrendous that they shouldn’t even be allowed to do it anymore. You can’t make a mistake like this and ruin people’s lives and then think it’s ok. Gilbertson [a therapist appointed by Judge Knutson] and Friedrich [the guardian ad litem appointed by Knutson] and him, you don’t just get to screw around with someone's life to like practice or to just try and test out different theories on you can do this (inaudible) a bunch of test dummies or a bunch of things.” D. The district court refused Appellant her 6" amendment right to confront her accuser, SVR was interviewed via Skype with the same people that made SVR change her testimony surrounding her outside the view of the camera, Appellant's attorney was limited in the number and content of his questions and appellant was essentially coerced into “waiving” her 6"* amendment rights, ‘The appellant was denied any testimony from GJR , the judge ruled she would not allow that witness to testify at all, again denying the appellant of her rights. ‘The justice “system depends on the truthfulness of the testimony of witnesses and false testimony strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice.” In re Salmen, 484 N.W.2d 253, 254 (Minn, 1992). KE. The district court improperly instructed the jury. The jury dismissed two charges for the reason of affirmative defense, Yet, all charges against Appellant are the same, If two charges are dismissed all charges must, dismissed be for the same defense. 2F. It is an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to allow the 2.5 hour, unedited Fox 9 newscast involving the Grazzini-Rucki case, and featuring interviews with SVR and GJR taken shortly after they ran away, into evidence. Itis insufficient, and does not meet evidentiary standards, for the district court to order the Appellant to testify on what she saw in the video to replace the actual video. Fox 9 Newscast (p. 13-15): ‘The State's argument that the district court considered the Appellant's request to submit the Fox 9 Newscast involving her two daughters SVR and GIR and ruled that the video would not be received into evidence but that Appellant could testify — on limited grounds — on what she saw in the video affirms that the district court did, in fact, err on this issue. The State's argument shows the error of the district court in the following ways: 1. The district court abused its authority by excluding the admission of the video of the news story AND instructing Appellant to do the following, (p. 15) “your client certainly may testify that she saw this, that the girls expressed fear, and that informed her decision going forward.” For Appellant to testify on behalf of both SVR and GJR, and their state of mind at the time of the taping, constitutes hearsay. Hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. Which means the district court instructed Appellant to give testimony based on hearsay knowing that it could be stricken, and any value the video would provide to her defense would be eliminated. 2. For the district court to say that Fox 9 newscast “informed” Appellant's “decision going forward” is inappropriate because the district court is putting words in the mouth of Appellant — or crafting her testimony. In fact, Appellant raised the affirmative defense, stating the actions she took are based on a history of domestic violence, child abuse, threats of physical harm and stalking ~ not just the newscast alone. ‘The State's argument regarding the Fox 9 Newscast relies on the district court's response to statements made by SVR and GJR ~ and excludes other evidence contained 23within the newscast that Appellant sought to presented — namely the testimony of father DR. and his attorney, Ms. Lisa Elliott, Issues critical to Appellant's defense were discussed — such as domestic violence allegations, D.R.'s history of abuse and his being court ordered into anger management, and the gunshots recorded on a voice mail message left for one of the children. The State has failed to make a case as to why the district court was justified in suppressing this part of the footage from the jury. F. Social Service Records (p. 17-18) The district court erred, and the social service records should have been allowed as evidence because SVR provided a statement to Lakeville police that contradicted previous statements made to a social worker, therapist, cps, doctors, teachers including statements made to a social worker in November 2015, after she was found living on a horse ranch as a runaway. This complies with the rules of evidence that, “As amended, Rule 801(d)(1)(B) permits prior consistent statements of a witness to be received as substantive evidence if they are helpfid to the trier of fact in evaluating the credibility of the witness," Further, the State does not deny that “the girls” SVR and GIR made statements to child protection regarding child abuse with their father as an identified perpetrator. This knowledge is the foundation for Appellants affirmative defense - a pattern of abuse committed against her children by their father, and a need to protect, them from imminent harm, The State asserts that social service records should not be admissible because statements were made by SVR and GIR at the time of recovery in November 2015, and ‘not at the time the girls ran away on April 19, 2013. At the same time, the Court is 2aactively suppressing statements SVR and GIR made to Fox 9 news on video camera, recorded at the time they ran away, As well as their audio recordings and affidavits they submitted after they ran describing the abuse In addition, the district court has abused its discretion because it “questioned the trustworthiness of what the girls reported to child protection following their recovery on November 18, 2015, given that SVR testified during the trial and denied that she had ever been abused by her father (IT 748-749)”, These are all issues for the jury to decide ~ whether child abuse occurred and if it was a factor in the actions Appellant took, if SVR and GJR are “trustworthy” in their statements, and the relevance of statements made to the social worker upon recovery, The district court abused its discretion by not allowing the jury to be presented with all the evidence and facts available in this case, and then making a decision for the jury, which ultimately influenced the outcome of the trial against Appellant by means of legal manipulation. It should also be noted that social service records, and other evidence Appellant sought to admit, would demonstrate that both SVR and GJR made consistent, unchanging allegations regarding abuse from their father — and their fear was always the same over a number of years. It is unknown if GJR's statement has changed. However, evidence shows SVR only changed her statement after being forced against her will into a reunification program with her abusive father shortly after recovery. SVR and GIR were escorted to the program by a guard, so they could not escape, and flown out of state to a rural location in California. Court records reflect the location was chosen because if the girls ran they would have no place to go. SVR and GIR were subjected to weeks of 25intensive intervention designed to get them to accept a relationship with their father, the girls were subjected to this on 2 separate occasions. SVR also made statements during her interview with Lakeville police that she was “pressured” and “guilted” by her father D.R. and paternal aunt TL. to recant abuse allegations and change her story. SVR did not simply change her story — she was under extreme duress to do so. This constitutes witness tampering, and as such, the entire conviction should be overturned. "Under our system of jurisprudence, every criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fndamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn, 1992) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). This includes the opportunity to develop the defendant's version of the facts, so the jury may decide where the truth lies. Id. at 194 (quoting Washington v, Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967). To vindicate this right, courts must allow defendants to present evidence "that is material and favorable to their theory of the case." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 866 (Minn. App. 1995). POINT II, THE PROSECUTOR DID COMMIT MISCONDUCT DURING HER. CLOSING ARGUMENT The appellant has demonstrated error and it significantly affected her rights. Appellant established that the court abused its discretion and she was clearly prejudiced by this error. Prosecutorial Misconduct A, The Dakota County Attorney’s Office attempted to seek an advantage lawsuit by cultivating or influencing media attention to support their (See Appendix I Media Excerpts for examples of this) The U.S. Constitution protects both the right of lawyers to speak in defense of their clients and the right of the public to learn about litigated matters. Yet, such 26protections and rights have limits. For lawyers, their rules of professional conduct provide four major limits. (1) the limit that American Bar Association Model Rule 3.6 imposes on extrajudicial statements during civil and criminal investigations and litigation; (2) additional limits that Model Rule 3.8(f) imposes on prosecutors regarding extrajudicial comments; (3) restrictions that Model Rule 8.2 places on criticisms of the judges; and (4) the prohibitions that Model Rule 8.4 contains against misrepresentations and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Model Rule 3.6 and Extrajudicial Statements about Pending Matt Substantial Likelihood of Materially Prejudicing a Proceeding” Model Rule 3.6(a) states the fundamental principle that determines when public statements regarding pending matters are permitted and prohibited: A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. This standard also likely governs dissemination of court pleadings, transcripts, and the like to the media without further comment, Model Rule 3.6(a) “sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer’s making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” Model Rules of Prof’l Conduet R. 3.6 emt. [3]. In doing so, Model Rule 3.6 attempts to strike a balance between “protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression,” Model Rules of Prof Conduct R. 3.6 emt. [1]. Ultimately, these five factors, plus any other relevant facts, must be considered to determine whether an extrajudicial statement will result in either of two evils: (1) alikely influence on the “actual outcome of the trial” or (2) a likely prejudice to the jury venire “even if an untainted panel can ultimately be found.” *Id.* at 1076. If there is a substantial likelihood an extrajudicial statement will result in either of these evils, Model Rule 3.6(a) generally bars such communications. If the evils are not likely to result, however, the communication generally should not violate Model Rule 3.6(a). As discussed in *Jn re Brizzi*, 962. N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (ind. 72012), courts typically look at the likelihood of prejudice. Proof of actual prejudice is not required. ‘Types of Communications Presumed to Be Unduly Prejudicial Comment paragraph [5] to Model Rule 3.6 warns that certain types of extrajudicial statements are ‘more likely than not to have a prejudicial effect on a proceeding,” Specifically targeted are statements regarding the following: @ @) 6) @) 6) (6) D. E the character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation, or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness; in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of aplea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement; the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented; any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial tisk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. . The trial judge must be aggressively involved in media management to ensure the constitutionally protected rights of the defendant to a fair trial and the societal right to justice in a properly conducted trial, Prosecutors in a court of law do not represent the vietims, they represent the state, The state is the one in charge of maintaining order and prosecutors are a function of that role. A prosecutor cannot align herself exclusively with the vietim. A prosecutor also owes an allegiance to constituencies that are independent of the victim-i.., the general public and the accused. A victim is not the "client" of the prosecution. Ms. Keena’s conduct was clearly erroneous and clearly intended to cause prejudice to the administration of justice: In an example taken from the State's brief, the State accuses Appellant of kidnapping in there brief they used words such as “Taken”, Appellant was never charged and not convicted of kidnapping. These remarks are prejudicial and meant to inflame the court. 28The justice “system depends on the truthfulness of the testimony of witnesses and false testimony strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice.” fn re Salen, 484 N.W.2d 253, 254 (Minn, 1992). Defendant's counsel asked for a mistrial on three occasions based on prosecutorial misconduct and judge, Karen Asphaug, denied all three requests. POINT IV, THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING EXECUTION OF APPELLANT'S SENTENCE, At this time, Appellant has over served the recommended sentence for this charge, and has been wrongfully held in jail and subjected to oppressive probationary conditions. Appellant objects to State's request for resentencing, and instead requests full dismissal. POINT V. BASED ON THE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY THIS APPEAL HAS DEMONSTRATED SERIOUS ERROR BY THE COURTS THAT HAS PREVENTED APPELLANT FROM RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL A. Witness Tampering / Jury Tampering On July 21, 2016, everyone but defense and prosecution was removed temporarily from the court room. Judge Karen Asphaug and then proceeded to acknowledge that during a break, the jury was in a common area, and were approached by members of the Jury on three occasions. Judge Asphaug specifically identified Michae! Brodkorb and Laura Adelmann as members of the press who approached the jury and asked if any would be willing to speak after the trial is over. Judge Asphaug assured all parties that Brodkorb was a personal friend and she would speak to him to settle the issue, 29Defendant's counsel did not ask for a mistrial even though Defendant demanded that counsel ask for one. CONCLUSION Appellant has not abandoned any prior arguments. For all the reasons stated here in and her original brief, and regardless of whether the errors alleged were preserved or plain error, the case should be immediately and all charges dismissed, Because the errors committed by that Court are so grave, the order should require the dismissal of convictions and award of fees paid. Since the Respondent is not responding to Appellants allegations Appellant takes that as an admission that all things stated herein and not responded to in her initial brief or responsive brief are admitted by Respondent as true and correct. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED July 10, 2017 SANDRA GRAZZINI-RUCKI DEFENDENT 30TIFICATION OF BRIEF LENGTH Thereby certify that this brief conforms to the requirements as set forth in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 132.01. The length of the brief is 6,926 Words. The brief was prepared using Microsoft word 10, The brief contains 13-point Times New Roman font. Dated: July 10, 2017 31ADDENDUM I: MEDIA EXCERPTS Judicial Bias From May 2, 2017 article Doug and Gina Dahlen sentenced to jail, probation for role in disappearance of Rucki sisters http://missinginminnesota,com/doug-and-gina-dahlen-sentenced-to-jail~ isappearance-of-rucki-sisters/ srobation-for-role- Judge applauded David Rucki’s parenting Before issuing a sentence to the Dahlens, Judge Asphaug spoke directly to David Rucki stating that his anger toward Doug and Gina Dahlen is “clear, righteous and justified.” She went on to comment that his victim impact statement was the most thoughtfully prepared statement she had heard in her 22 years on the bench, Judge Asphaug commended David Rucki for the pragmatic, practical, hands on realistic loving way he set about being a dad to five children whose lives were turned upside down, She ended simply by saying “thank you.” Judge Asphang said that Grazzini-Rucki was “motivated by vengence. She waged a peisonal vendetta against Mr, Rucki, She instilled fear in the minds and hearts of the girls.” Judge Asphaug added that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki “set this in motion” (There is NO evidence to support any of these statements. In fact, SVR stated in a June 2016 interview with Lakevill police that “I just want to be with my mom.” 32In speaking to Evavold’s motivation, Judge Asphaug stated she was “motivated by polictical ill will and distrust of government.” ‘The decision by Doug and Gina Dahlen to plead guilty ensured that Assistant Dakota County Attomey Kathy Kenna successfully prosecuted all of the people criminally charged related to the disappearance of the Rucki sisters, Grazzini-Rucki chooses prison over probation, jail sentence Published September 22, 2016 at 6:46 am Dave Rucki shares victim impact statement in court A former Lakeville resident who hid her two teen daughters for more than two and a half years during a custody battle was sentenced in Dakota County court Wednesday. Lakeville resident Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was sentenced in Dakota County court Sept. 21. She is with her attorney Stephen Grigsby (left) and behind her is Judge Karen Asphaug. (Photo provided with permis ion from Star Tribune — Glen Stubbe) Lakeyille police said Grazzini-Rucki and a group of people who distrust the courts worked against their efforts to find the girls, At her trial, Grazzini-Rucki testified she was dishonest with officials and refused court orders to provide information about the girls’ whereabouts to protect them from David Rucki because he abused herself and their children, 33,David Rucki has always denied those claims and testified at her trial he never abused the children or Grazzini-Rucki, Samantha Rucki and the former couple’s eldest child Nico Rucki also testified their father never abused them or their mother. David Rucki was given sole custody of all five of their children Nov. 25, 2013, ina 63- page order granted while the girls were still missing. In the victim impact statement, David Rucki described the emotional impact of the situation on the former couple’s five children. He said Grazzini-Rucki created an environment of “paranoia and fear” with their children in an effort to convince them, “and the world, that I was a monster.” Dakota County Attorney Kathryn Keena alleged that during the divorce and custody dispute, Grazzini-Rucki actively worked to turn the children against their father, a process known as parental alienation or hostile aggressive parenting, according to the Parental Alienation Awareness Organization, (Parental Alienation is not recognized medical condition, nor is there any way to diagnose its existence. Parental Alienation has failed to meet the Frye Standard and is not admissible in many courts across the nation, Appellant has not been formally diagnosed with Parental Alienation, Further, Prosecutor Keena lacks the expertise and credentials to make sich assertions). David Rucki said Nico Rucki was torn between his desire to trust and believe his mother and his need to “finally tell the truth.” David Rucki in a previous interview with the newspaper that the pain he experienced while the girls were missing was “unbearable,” In court, he said one of the worst days during the 944 days his children were missing was when reporter Trish Van Pilsum from FOX-9 news “showed up uninvited to my home.” i David Rucki said the girls had been missing 10 days, and at the end of the interview with Van Pilsum, she told him she had interviewed his missing daughters. “She refused to share any information on their location with me or law enforcement,” David Rucki said, “She left me helpless, knowing that she alone could help bring me to my girls yet hiding behind the shield of journalistic integrity.” After Grazzini-Rucki sentencitig, family looks toward healing Published September 22, 2016 at 7:33 am David, Nico Rucki pleased with ruling, ready to move on During Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s Sept, 21 sentencing hearing, Judge Karen Asphaug expressed sympathy for the Lakeville mother’s family, whom she said are victims of their mother’s actions. : 34Asphaug directly addressed David Rucki, Grazzini-Rucki’s ex-husband and father of their five children, and stated she was “deeply affected” by his victim impact statement that he had moments earlier, sometimes through tears, read in court! Describing his words as “eloquent,” and a “heart-felt tribute” to their children, Asphaug expressed sympathy for David Rucki and their children, Addressing Grazzini-Rucki, Asphaug said her actions in leaving her two daughters with strangers at a farm in rural Minnesota while leaving their other three children with David Rucki, whom she claimed was abusive, “defies logic.” David Rucki and their adult children have all denied he was abusive. Asphaug said Grazzini-Rucki’s actions were the result of animosity toward David Rucki and in response to family court decisions, She said Grazzini-Rucki felt she did not get her way in family court and so she took a “my way or the highway” approach, “literally taking to the highway.” Asphaug said she is a mom, grandma and a judge, and asked David Rucki to convey a message to the Rucki children, She quoted Helen Keller, “Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.” Asphaug asked David Rucki to tell his children they are smart, strong, resilient, loved and appreciated for who they are, She described the Rucki children as “vibrant,” “unique individuals in their own. right,” and to Samantha and Gianna Rucki, she encouraged them to reach for their dreams and know they are strong and brave. ‘Asphaug’s sentencing included several provisions beyond Minnesota state sentencing guidelines, most significantly that for the next six years on Nov. 19, the anniversary of her daughters? recovery, Grazzini-Rucki will serve 15 days in jail. David Rucki said he was pleased with the sentencing beeause it holds Grazzini-Rucki accountable, He called Asphaug’s comments “powerful,” calling her work “excellent.” David Rucki said Asphaug showed a lot of compassion toward the children throughout the court hearing, “The girls are the victims here,” David Rucki said. “I’m happy that she took the time and said those nice things.” David Rucki said the girls “don’t fully realize to this day of what has happened to them.” He said Grazzini-Rucki will be held accountable to her actions and what she has done to her children as the girls mature and realize more of what occurred. Rucki’s son, Nico Rucki, said he was at a loss of words and uncertain of how to feel now that the sentencing was over. 35STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Appellate Court File STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FAMILY COURT DIVISION. COURT FILE No, 19AV-FA-11-1273 Judge David L. Knutson In Re the Marriage Sandra Sue Grazzini-Ruckl, MOTION FOR A STAY AND SUSPENSION OF RULES Petitioner, and David Victor Rucki, Respondent, Pursuant to Rule 108.01 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, petitioner-appeliant Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki (mother) moves for a indefinite stay of the Order filed April 19, 2013 by Dakota County Judge David Knutson to allow this Court to assess the situation and determine the action this Court will take. Pursuant to Appellate Rule 108.02, mother moves for a suspension of Rule 108.02. On April 19, 2013 at about 9:30 a.m., mother filed her appeal to this Court of the denial by Judge Knutson of her application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to regain the custody and care of her five children. Late in the afternoon on April 19, 2013, at about 4:00 p.m., Judge Knutson’s Order was filed. This order authorized the Immediate transfer of custody of mother’s five children to another third person, the children’s paternal aunt named Tammy Love. Tammy Love is currently leaving in mother’s homestead that she was ordered to vacate and did vacate per the order of Judge Knutson on September 7, 2012. These children ages 10 thru 14, are terrified both of Tammy Love and their father. Tammy Love has physically abused these children, , has a history of drug usage and lost custody of her own children for cause. Judge Knutson determined that paternal aunt is now qualified to be the custodian of mother’s children, Mother's chilcren barely know Tammy Love, Allof mother’s youngest children (ages 40, 11. 13 and 44) personally informed Judge Knutson of their fears and preferences to be with their mother at a conference before Judge Knutson on February 26, 2013. Prior to the order made on September 7, 2012, mother was the sole caretaker of the children. In the original Judgment and Decree from May 12, 2011, respondent gave 100% sole physical and legal custody of al 5 children to mother. This was signed and court ordered by Judge Wermanger. Approximately 2 ‘month tater, father testified that he thought it was a “fake divorce” and the original order was thrown ‘out and never forwarded to appeals court, from there Judge Knutson has been the sole Judge on the case,This motion is made to allow the Court time to sort out the situation and protect the children from severe disruption and damage. If this Court grants the requested stay, the youngest four children would remain in their mother’s custody and care pending the Court’s ruling on mother’s appeal of her application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dakota County Child Protection previously initiated an investigation of the father’s abuse of these children but this investigation was ended without explanation by order of ludge Knutson, Mother's proposal will restore the children to a normal routine, Judge Knutson’s order filed April 19, 2013 makes no findings - none at all. ludge Knutson asstumes that mother has the condition of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). There has never been a heating on this assumption. There is no finding of fact that supports this assumption. The assumption of PAS is based on the report of a court-appointed expert, Dr. Paul Reitman. Dr. Reitman has never appeared before Judge Knutson. He has never given testimony, submitted any evidence in court, or been subject to cross-examnination. His report has never even presented to mother. PAS is a completely discredited theory. "Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, the term [s still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children’s fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations." American Psychological Society Task Force Report 40. “PAS as a scientific theory has been excoriated by legitimate researchers across the nation." Dr. Paul J. Fink, past President of the American Psychiatric Association, “The scientific status of PAS is, to be blunt, nil.” Emery, Otto & Donohue (2005) PAS is “probably the most unscientific plece of garbage I've seen in the field in all my time." Professor Jon Conte, a leading expert on child sexual abuse. "The theory positing the existence of 'PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community." NCIFC) Custody Guidelines, p.24 "PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association." National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse/National District Attorneys Association. All of her independent psychological evaluations have no indication of a psychological evaluation have found no indication of a psychological or emotional disorder, The trial court has not found or even alleged that mother has ever abused or mistreated any of her children in any way, There is no allegation that mother is a physical danger to any of her children, There is no basis for depriving her of her constitutional right to the custody and care ‘of her children as against a third person, There has never been an application of the formula set forth in Minnesota Statutes § 518,17 to determine who should have custody of the parties children, Mother has been the primary caretaker of her children since their birth. The only basis of Judge Knutson’s April 19, 2013 order is the allegation that mother has alienated the children from their father. The children deny this. The four youngest children {ages 10, 11, 13, and 14), told Judge Knutson this at their conference with him on February 26, 2013. They begged Judge Knutson to return them to the custody and care of thelr mother.Judge Knutson’s response was to "seal" the transcript of what the children said. He does not want this Court of anyone else to know what the children told him or their preferences concerning custody, There is no basis for seating this transcript. ‘As explained in mother’s appeal of the denial of her application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the oldest child, a boy 16 years old, has been allowed since September 7, 2012, to live with ‘Tammy Love and his father. This child has been given an automobile and several expensive gifts in an effort to buy his affections. This child's school records show that since he began living with Tammy Love and his father, he has been absent most of the time fram his high schoo! and is failing high school. His best interests are not being served. ‘The order filed in District Court on April 19, 2013 is a series of orders based on alleged agreements of mother to give up custody of her children and on the disposition of the par property as well as affidavits of the “respondents attorney”. None of these orders are based on the children’s best interests or any findings of fact. Mother denies the allegations made in the April 19, 2013 order. But mother understands that that is not before the Appeals Court at this time. The only issue before the Appeals Court at this time is mother’s right to the custody of her children as against a third person, Tammy Love. if given the chance, mother will demonstrate to ‘an impartial judge that there was no fraud or other basis for vacating the default judgment in her favor and reopening of the judgment and decree she obtained in this proceeding, In her appeal now before the Appeals Court, mother asks that Judge Knutson be removed as the Judge In this proceeding and all other proceedings involving mother and the respondent. At the hearing required by Minnesota Statutes § 589.30, mother will demonstrate Judge Knutson’s strong bias in respondent's favor. ‘The orders should be considered VOID as they are induced by fraud upon the court. The order is an obstruction of justice and endangers the children’s safety and well- being. ‘At this time, mother asks only for a stay of the April 19, 2013 order of Judge Knutson and a suspension of Appellate Rule 108.02. Dated April 22,2013, Resng Aully, : { LULA tH A. dak Sandra Sue Grazziffi-Rucki Se tee ProseREGISTER OF ACTIONS CASENO. 27-CR-04-085053 Stato of Minnosota vs HOLLY ANN COLLINS. § CasoType: CriavTraf Mandatory Date Filed: 67101/1994 Location Hennepin Cr ; $ nay Dot : PARTE NFORIATION. Lead Attorneys Defendant COLLINS, HOLLY TUETER Also Known As COLLINS, HOLLY ANN Female Sr ake mnt oomo 558 Srowroes Juristeton State of Hnnesota ruzasem v curTeR 612.248-6951(W) Shares: COLLINS, HOLLY giauga Lovel__ ate —_biepostton Lovet ofSortenco eT temptotCourt ——_—588.20,4Msdomearatr10 08732008 Lom Of SomarcoUnavalobl yor 4 Convicted Sentenced EVENTS © ORDERS OF THE COURT pisposrrioNs 0912312008 | Plea (Judi'al Otteor: Daly, Margarot A) 4. Contempt of Court cuaty ‘08/28/2008 | Disposition (Juxcial Ofcer Day, Margaret A) 4. Contempt of Court Convicted ‘0728/2008 | Sentoncod 4. Contempt of Court osis0/1964 (MSD) 588, 20,(4) (688204) Condon Adult: {, Retain fwabiding, No new offenses 09/2/2008, Active 0973/2008 Feo Tota Lave Library ees 3.00 Count Sherif & Felony Fines 0.00 eo Tole 0.00 oes! Conineent ‘Azenoy: Hennepin County Workhouse - Adult Comesions “Term: 90 Days Time Te Serve: None Slay 9 Days For Yr Status Active 0872372008 Monitering - Adut “Type Supervised probation Agency: Hennepin County Comenaniy Como - Adult itd Seriees ‘Temofi Yr (097237200 - 097232009 ‘Comment: Defendant on probation for 1 year ot vat Dafendant completes 40 hrs of community service. ‘Stat: Closed 100872008 Service Adult