Congressional Testimony: Sharon Anderson to Bill Windsor of Lawless Ame...

SandraGrazzini-Rucki PauperPAY ChildSupport2019

The Provocateur: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, A Pauper Who Should Pay Child Support
                     Sharons Disclaimer; Honor, Respect for Author Mike Volpe to
                        expose MN Family Court Corruption.

Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

THE PROVOCATEUR

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"

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, A Pauper Who Should Pay Child Support

          (Judge Lorie Gildea, who thinks paupers should pay multi-millionaires child support)

The Minnesota Supreme Court, led by Judge Lorie Gildea, has to twist itself into pretzels to carry David Rucki's water. Their latest order shows that.

Order - PFR - Deny (4) by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Even as Judge Gildea refused to review the previous child support orders which ordered SGR, homeless and jobless, to pay child support to David Rucki, the multi-millionaire owner of several homes. she also granted Ms. Grazzini-Rucki pauper status.

Judge Gildea has reviewed more than a dozen of SGR's motions- both civil and criminal- and voted against her every time. This, I am sure, is only because every time SGR had the poorer argument.

Judge Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks, of the Minnesota Appeals Court,  has also reviewed more than a dozen appeals from SGR, both civil and criminal, and ruled against her every time as well.

As I have previously shown, even as she was in jail, SGR was ordered by Magistrate Maria Pastoor in May 2018 to start paying $975 per month in a hearing where SGR wasn't in attendance.

May 3 Hearing by mikekvolpe on Scribd

That was later reduced by Judge Jan Davidson to $215 per month but all arrears were kept in place so SGR is well more than $10,000 behind.

Judge Jan Davidson issued her ruling even though the transcript from the hearing shows she never provided Sandra Grazzini-Rcuki an opportunity to present her case.

TranscriptAugust2018 (1) by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Despite this blatant violation of SGR's due process, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court led by Judge Gildea found that nothing was amiss.

They made these rulings despite acknowledging that SGR was jobless, her monthly expenses unknown, and no one knew exactly how much David Rucki made because he was allowed to refuse to submit his income documents.

A photo of the interior of his home is below.

Things may be even more nefarious than this.

It appears that on November 17, 2015, Lisa Elliott and Judge Phil Kanning teamed up to legally steal approximately $500,000 from Sandra Grazzini-Rucki by Elliott helping herself to a trust meant for SGR, a trust which was set up by SGR's father for his children and not Elliott or her client, David Rucki.

Lisa Elliott has represented David Rucki since shortly after his divorce got started. While she told 20/20 the divorce was a "guerilla divorce" the "guerrilla part only started as soon as she appeared.

She declined to respond to an email for comment.

DruckiSrucki by mikekvolpe on Scribd

As with Magistrate Pastoor, Judge Kanning held the hearing without the presence of SGR- are you sensing a pattern here.

"So, your order indicated that our motion to distribute the funds that were held in my trust account from GFP to satisfy Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's debts and the parties joint debts was granted subject to a stay."

That stay, as Elliott stated, was conditioned, "for ten days, which would give Ms. Grazzini-Rucki time to comply with your order."

Ms. Elliott claimed the conditions weren't met so, "so, on September 11th, we sent out notice to everybody, that we intended to start paying off everybody."

Here are some of the people paid off, "Then the joint marital debts that have been satisfied are a Wells Fargo credit card, 2009 federal taxes, Bracket's golf membership, Fred and Vicky Rucki (David Rucki's parents), and also Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's attorneys fees owed to my office."

In other words, this trust set up by Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's parents was used to pay David Rucki's parents and his attorney, among others.

But Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's attorney, Michelle MacDonald, said it was not accurate that conditions were not satisfied, "Your order was stayed and Ms. Grazzini-Rucki did in fact comply with number one of your order," MacDonald stated, "To my surprise Ms. Elliott, who was entrusted with $500,000, just proceeded to distribute those funds (including to herself)."

She continued, "Your honor, and it makes this hearing completely moot because this hearing was scheduled so that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki  could be here- under the guise of your giving her an opportunity to present her non-marital claim to those funds."

Incidentally, how is it that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki had $500,000 in trust and not know it; that is because her siblings never told her and let her suffer for years homeless without mentioning that there was $500,000 available to her; SGR's parents had tens of millions of dollars and she should not be in this position today.

"Well, I respectfully disagree, I don't think your client did comply," said the judge, Phil Kanning.

Kanning no longer has a functioning email but the four media representatives- Beau Berentson, Kyle Christopherson, Lissa Finne, and Alyssa Siems Roberson- for the Minnesota courts did receive an email which they did not respond to.

How did Ms. Elliott get access to a trust from SGR's dad, this is Dakota County, that's how.

"Ms. Elliott connected with David Rucki's parents and did in fact attach a significant portion of those funds and then proceeded to move them here." MacDonald stated.

The transcripts also show that the trust was started in Hennepin County but Dakota County did not care and simply moved it to their county for Lisa Elliott to then legally raid, "I think I explained this to the court, is that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki never got a judgment in the Hennepin County case, it was bypassed, and all of the proceeds were simply scheduled to paid to Ms. Elliott." Michelle MacDonald stated.

Ms. Elliott then noted, "I want to clarify for the record that the money was never made payable to me. It was never deposited into my account. It was deposited directly into the trust account," a distinction without a difference since she helped herself to the money.

Finally, I expect that Ms. Elliott will soon file a motion to hold Ms. Grazzini-Rucki in contempt of court for failure to pay child support. The intention is to have her thrown in jail because as David Rucki told a trusted associated, "She (SGR) will be in jail by fall," it is fall.

RevSharonScarrellaetalvsMidwestFedS&lvsStateMinnEquitySkimming5thAmendTakingsJudicialCorruption

536 F2d 1207 Rev. Sharon L. Scarrella et Al., | OpenJurist

openjurist.org/536/f2d/1207

536 F.2d 1207. Rev. Sharon L. SCARRELLA et al., Appellants, v. MIDWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN et al., Appellees. No. 75-1912. United States Court of Appeals,

          fRI.14Jun2019    TO THE ABOVE NAMED;

                                        Sharon still Alive and Kicking the Sands of Time to expose Corruption of Lawyers, Judges and now the DFL Party Chair Tom Perez

                               Under Penalty of Perjury
Judicial Delusions

                          Sick of these Corrupt Lawyers, who destroy the Rule of Law

             Equity Skimming Reckless Disregard to Affiants Sharons Peterson aka Scarrella Anderson Title and Tenants in Common at 1058 Summit Ave. St. Paul

                     also Given a Justice Seat on MN Supeme Court as a Bribe in the USSC 10-1032 TITLED Magner vs. Gallagher  to Cause Grave Harm and Injury not only to the Black Community in Fair Housing but for

                                 Frank Steinhauser and Affiant.

Judge Jerome G. 'Jerry' Arnold Obituary | Star Tribune

 

www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/0000313735/

1. 
   

5 days ago - Arnold, Judge Jerome G. 'Jerry' 78, of Duluth, passed away comfortably at his beloved Schultz Lake home Thursday morning, June 6, 2019.

 Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, he served Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush from 1986 through 1991. His tenure included several high-profile cases, including playing a leading role in the U.S. Justice Department's crackdown on Savings and LoanFraud in the late '80s. As U.S. Attorney, Jerry was also

Lillehaug paid equal attention to civil rights issues. He applied for and obtained a special federal grant to train police officers in the appropriate use of force. He participated actively on the task force headed by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis that reported on racial disparities in pre-trial release and bond conditions. With the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, Lillehaug envisioned, organized, and convened a Minnesota Summit on Hate Crimes.
Justice David L. Lillehaug | Biography

Examples of opinions Justice Lillehaug has authored during his first year on the Supreme Court are the following:

• State v. Yarbrough, firearms and narcotics search warrant case
• State v. Fairbanks, first degree murder of a deputy sheriff
• State v. Nelson, dissenting in a criminal child support case
• Minke v. City of Minneapolis, police officer defamation case
• Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety, dissenting in a driver's license revocation case
• Walsh v. U.S. Bank, upholding Minnesota's pleading standards

Justice David Lillehaug to step down next year due to illness ...

www.startribune.com/minnesota-justice-lillehaug-to-step-down-after.../511180472/

2 days ago - Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Lillehaug, citing early stage Parkinson's disease, said Wednesday that he will retire from the bench ...

David Lillehaug - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lillehaug

David Lee Lillehaug (born May 22, 1954) is an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He served as the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota from 1994 to 1998.

Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com

http://blogitbabe.blogspot.com    http://sharon4council.blogspot.com

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon
v. Arch

536 F.2d 1207

Rev. Sharon L. SCARRELLA et al., Appellants,
v.
MIDWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN et al., Appellees.

No. 75-1912.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 27, 1976.
Decided June 8, 1976.

Rev. Sharon L. Scarrella, pro se.

Thomas E. Harms, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Advertisement

1

The appellants in this action are the Reverend Sharon Scarrella, a self-ordained minister of the Church of Justice Reform, Inc., the Reverend Richard Bullock, and Albert Brisson. They appeal an interlocutory order of the district court1 dismissing appellants Bullock and Brisson as plaintiffs in the action pending below.2 Additionally, appellants Scarrella and Bullock have filed a motion requesting all of the judges of this court to disqualify themselves.

2

We deny the motion for disqualification and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

3

I. Motion for Disqualification.

4

The grounds alleged by appellants for disqualification of the members of this court are (1) that the members of this court are involved with or are members of, the Minnesota State Bar Association and the American Bar Association, both of which were defendants in a separate class action suit brought by the appellants and (2) that the members of this court have a "unique relationship" with the members of the legal profession and the financial interests in the state of Minnesota and as such cannot render a fair and impartial decision. Such vague allegations of prejudice are insufficient to require disqualification of any member of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 455. See Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee v. F.B.I., 507 F.2d 1281, 1285 (8th Cir. 1974).

5

II. Jurisdiction.

6

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every pleading be signed by the party filing it, or by that party's attorney. Here the notice of appeal, which was purported to be on behalf of all appellants, was signed only by appellant Scarrella, who is not an attorney. Since appellants Bullock and Brisson did not sign the notice of appeal, their appeals must be dismissed. McKinney v. DeBord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974); cf. Huffman v. Nebraska Bureau of Vital Statistics, 320 F.Supp. 154 (D.Neb. 1970). As the court in Huffman stated in applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 in an analogous situation

7

* * * one of the justifications * * * of Rule 11 is to make certain that the persons who are named as parties are actually in assent to the filing of an action on their behalf * * *.

Advertisement

8

Id. at 156.

9

Assuming the order as to Brisson and Bullock to be appealable, we do not by dismissing their appeal prejudice their right to appeal the order upon entry of final judgment by the district court. A party is not required to take an interlocutory appeal authorized by statute. A & R Realty Co. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 95 F.2d 703, 707 (8th Cir. 1938); Caradelis v. Refineria Panama, S.A., 384 F.2d 589, 591 (5th Cir. 1967); Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. George, 105 F.2d 697, 699 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 611, 60 S.Ct. 176, 84 L.Ed. 511 (1939); 9 Moore's Federal Practice § 110.18 at 205-206 (1975).

10

We also dismiss the appeal as to appellant Scarrella. The order dismissing plaintiffs Bullock and Brisson did not resolve the rights and liabilities of all parties. Since the district court did not render "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay" and "an express direction for the entry of judgment," pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the order is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and therefore nonappealable unless of a type permitted interlocutory review by statute. McNally v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 523 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1976); Lane v. Graves, 518 F.2d 965 (8th Cir. 1975); Wooten v. First National Bank, 490 F.2d 1275 (8th Cir. 1974).

11

The only possible source of jurisdiction here is 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which extends appellate jurisdiction to "(i)nterlocutory orders of the district courts * * * granting, * * * refusing or dissolving injunctions * * *." It is true that plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief. However, where an order dismisses fewer than all plaintiffs or defendants, the test to determine whether that order is one granting or denying injunctive relief is essentially whether the order contracts the scope of the injunctive relief originally sought. Build of Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita, 441 F.2d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1971); Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362, 1364-1365 (1st Cir. 1972). Whatever the merits of an argument that as to Bullock and Brisson the scope of injunctive relief has been contracted, it is clear that as to appellant Scarrella the full measure of injunctive relief sought is still available. Therefore, her appeal must be dismissed.

12

Finally, we note that appellant Scarrella complains of the failure of the district judge to disqualify himself. A determination by a district judge not to disqualify himself is reviewable by appeal only from a final judgment in the cause in which the motion for disqualification was filed. Dubnoff v. Goldstein, 385 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1967); Albert v. U. S. District Court for the W.D. of Michigan, 283 F.2d 61 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 828, 81 S.Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 706 (1961). However, we have held that such a determination is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus, and we treat Scarrella's allegation on appeal as such a petition. Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2411, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972).

13

Scarrella alleges that disqualification is required because the judge had been a defendant in a separate action brought by two of the three appellants against all of the federal district judges of the District of Minnesota. Scarrella also alleges that the district judge, in 1959, while chairman of the Minnesota Human Rights Commission, "urged others to prevent a U.S. citizen to speak just because he * * * didn't agree with the speaker's views." These claims were made in an affidavit of prejudice filed on October 21, 1975, the same day on which the district judge held a hearing on the matters giving rise to this appeal.

14

We hold that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to disqualify himself. The allegations of bias as set forth in the affidavit were legally insufficient to require his disqualification. We have previously held that the fact that a party has in the past attempted to initiate unrelated judicial proceedings against the court is insufficient in and of itself to establish bias. Hodgdon v. United States, 365 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1029, 87 S.Ct. 759, 17 L.Ed.2d 676 (1967). Appellant failed in her affidavit to allege sufficient factual details establishing personal bias toward her on the part of the district judge. Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee v. F.B.I., supra, at 1285-1286. Further, the affidavit of bias was untimely filed, and no just cause for delay appears in the record. 28 U.S.C. § 144. Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee v. F.B.I., supra, at 1286.

15

The appeal is dismissed, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

1

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Larson

2

The allegations of the complaint filed below arose out of a mortgagor-mortgagee relationship between appellant Scarrella and appellee Midwest Federal Savings & Loan (Midwest). The mortgage agreement required Scarrella at the option of Midwest to pay into an escrow account on a monthly basis one-twelfth of the amount Midwest estimated to be necessary to pay taxes and insurance. Scarrella declined to pay into the escrow account, and Midwest instituted foreclosure proceedings. Appellants in their complaint sought to establish a class action suit as "taxpayers and consumer advocates" to aid in "exposing to the general public the outrageous and confistory (sic) real estate tax situation which is being perpetrated upon the citizens of the state" and in exposing Minnesota banks' "hazy activities" of holding money in an escrow account to pay taxes and insurance, without paying interest on the escrow funds. Appellants sought injunctive relief and damages

Advertisement

Advertisement

1. Home
2. Federal Reporter, Second Series
3. 536 F.2d.