A17-0200

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Deirdre Evavold,

Appellant.

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF

AND ADDENDUM

LORI SWANSON DEIRDRE EVAVOLD

State Attorney General 3015 30TH Street Ct. South
1800 Bremer Tower St. Cloud, MN 56301
445 Minnesota Street (320) 293-6231
St. Paul, 55101
(651) 297-2040 PRO SE APPELLANT

JAMES BACKSTROM
Dakota County Attorney

Kathryn M. Keena
Assistant County Attorney
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
(651) 438-4438
 INTRODUCTION

Respondent argues there is no basis for Appellants arguments that she did not receive a
fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias/impartiality. However, based on
the entire record and pretense of the trial, a reasonable trier of fact could not have
concluded that Appellant should have ever been charged or convicted.

REPLY STATEMENT OF FACTS

SVR and GJR ran away in April 2013. Before the teens ran, they repeatedly accused their
father of abuse, but a court-appointed psychologist concluded that their mother, Sandra
Grazzini-Rucki, had brainwashed them with no findings of fact.

On April 19, 2013, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki filed an appeal pursuant to Rule 108.01 for an
indefinite stay of the Order filed by Judge Knutson, denying her application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus seeking to regain the custody and care of the five children. On the same day,
Judge Knutson filed an order authorizing the immediate transfer of custody of mothers five
children to the childrens paternal aunt Tammy Love. The youngest 4 children personally
informed Judge Knutson of their fears and preferences to be with their mother at a
conference before Judge Knutson on February 26, 2013. Dakota County Child Protection
previously initiated an investigation of the fathers abuse, but the order was ended without
explanation by order of Judge Knutson.

The trial court has not found or even alleged that mother has ever abused or mistreated any
of her children in any way. There were never any allegations that mother was a physical
danger to any of her children and there was not any type of evidentiary hearing before the
trial courts intrusion and assault on this family.

There was no basis for depriving her of her constitutional right to the custody and care of
her children as against a third person, Tammy Love. There had never been an application
of the formula set forth in Minn. Statutes 518.17 to determine who should have custody
of the parties children. Mother was the primary caretaker of her children since their birth.
Judge Knutson knew that the mother never neglected or abused the children, and knew
that she never posed a significant risk of harm to the children all along.

The only basis of Judge Knutsons April 19, 2013 order was the allegation that mother had
alienated the children from their father. The children denied this. The four youngest
children 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 their mother. Judge
Knutsons response was to seal the transcript of what the children said when there was
no basis for doing so.

The two oldest girls ran away because of judicial misconduct on April 19, 2013, which is
the day they were ordered to live with Tammy Love. Since that day, actions have been
filed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting investigation and protection of the
children, to no avail.

Their father, David Rucki, was granted full custody of the children in November 2013
after the judge ruled that there was no credible evidence that the girls were abused.

The girls were located on November 18, 2015. Dakota County child protection placed the
girls in a foster care home a few days after they were found and asked a judge to keep
them there. The county argued in a court hearing on November 30, 2015 that the girls
were likely to flee again and needed to be in a safe and stable environment after refusing
to live with their father. The court decision was to return children to dad for him to arrange
for the children to go to a reunification program in California.

The runaway Lakeville sisters who had been missing for two and a half years will be sent to
an intensive out-of-state reunification program after a Dakota County judge pulled them out
of foster care Monday. The program aims to overcome the resistance of Gianna and
Samantha Rucki to moving back in with their father, whom they still refuse to live with, less
than two weeks after they were discovered on a western Minnesota horse farm. Saying the
girls life has become a circus, Judge Michael Mayer had to choose among three
competing arguments of where Gianna, 16, and Samantha, 17, should go By Brandon Stahl
Star Tribune December 1, 2015 10:31pm

The State charged Appellant with multiple counts of interfering with the custody or
parental rights of another in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.26, subd. 1. A jury found her
guilty of six counts and the district court, Judge Asphaug, sentenced her to two concurrent
stayed year-and-a-day prison terms and placed her on probation for two consecutive four-
year terms.

ARGUMENT

REPLY ISSUE ONE RESTATED: APPELLANT WAS WRONGFULLY CHARGED

AND CONVICTED OF PARENTAL DEPRIVATION.

The Grazzini-Rucki court files and records were compromised in a variety of ways by
Judge Knutson, or at his direction prior to charges filed against Appellant. Judge Knutson
and Judge Asphaug usurped the court file and acquitted David Rucki of criminal actions in
the past.

Lakeville Police Officer Jim Dronen, who testified at Appellants trial, requested that
David Ruckis order for protection violation be deleted and no data entered in the
Minnesota Court Information System (MNCIS) in 2011. (See attached letter). This was
brought forward in the Civil Rights Complaint filed by Attorney Michelle MacDonald on
behalf of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her children on September 11, 2013.

MNCIS was clearly compromised by authorities and it is believed that other violations
were pending and erased, as instructed by and through Judge Knutson and the Lakeville
Police Department.

Ms. Keena seems to purposely fail to address appellants issues. There were voluminous
amounts of evidence that Ms. Keena was aware of and ignored that supported the
affirmative defense. She failed to consider this when charging, and then over charging
Appellant. She has an ethical responsibly to not charge with the evidence in front of her.
Her failure to address this suggests that she agrees with this argument. The appellant is
aware that much responsibility for this lies in the District Courts responsibility to address
malicious prosecution as Appellant was Pro Se, which was addressed in this appellants
initial filling to the Appellate Court.

Appellant was well aware before her trial ensued that all relevant evidence to support the
affirmative defense would be suppressed. In fact, the Notice of Motion and Motions In
Limine was filed with the district Court on September 22, 2016 and served via US Mail on
Appellant on September 24, 2016, which was a Saturday. This was purposeful by
Respondent, to catch Appellant off guard and therefore inadequately able to present an
effective defense in this matter. Appellant was set for trial the very next Monday at 9:00
AM in Dakota County which is approximately 95 miles from her home.

More Specifically, The motions in limine submitted by the State prohibited any specific
acts of domestic assault allegedly committed against mother, children and/or any other
assaults 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.

The state does not point out is that David Rucki has been convicted of such crimes and has
plad 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. David Rucki was essentially made a quasi-client of the prosecution.

The criminal case against Appellant was filed without an adequate basis and for the
improper purpose of attempting to place blame on Appellant and co-defendants vs. the
actual wrongdoers. Respondent violated procedural fairness and conducted a trial by
ambush against Appellant by illegally withholding/suppressing evidence as well as
allowing perjured testimony in the trial. These actions swayed the jury to wrongly convict
the Appellant.
Prosecutors have "an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial,"
Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 300, and must be especially careful to remain above the fray in
emotionally-charged cases like this one.

The general rule that a party must object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct or waive the
issue does not apply to a criminal defendant appearing pro se. State v. Stufflebean, 329
N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn.1983) (holding appellate court must evaluate the misconduct to
determine whether it was so serious the district court should have intervened sua sponte).

Courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or not
presented. Courts are more likely to decide an issue sua sponte when it presents a pure
question of law, or to avoid plain error, even if the parties waived the issue.

A factual legal argument could not be made before the jury as the foundation of facts
could not be laid out due to the concealment of exculpatory evidence. This was addressed
prior to the trial, during the trial and at the sentencing hearing.

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).

The Court attempted to force the Appellant to assert the affirmative defense when
exculpatory evidence was illegally withheld and disallowed in the trial.

Because the evidence was not able to be produced, being forced into arguing an
affirmative defense would have been the same as pleading guilty without receiving all
evidence.
(See excerpt of coercion to assert an affirmative defense and trial by ambush below).

JURY TRIAL VOLUME II (PP. 48-59)

THE COURT: Do you intend to give notice of an affirmative defense?

THE DEFENDANT: Again, I'm going to stick to the fact that I have not received all my
evidence. I brought information today of what's being withheld, illegally. And again,
until I get that, I will make no comment about what I will or won't do.

THE COURT: Well, you will be -- you will not be allowed to present an affirmative
defense if you do not give notice of your intent to offer an affirmative defense.

THE DEFENDANT: Like I said, I went to the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, to the
Criminal Division yesterday, to report, and I also went to the District Court administrative
office to give them the FBI information that we have also reported this to them. So that is
my remedy for the courts --

THE COURT: Ma'am --

THE DEFENDANT: -- so that I don't get ambushed.

THE COURT: Ma'am?

THE DEFENDANT: Uh-huh?

THE COURT: Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, you are required to give notice. It
says under Rule 9.02, Subd. 1(5): "The defense must inform the prosecutor in writing of
any defense, other than not guilty, that the defendant intends to assert..."

Under Minnesota Statute 609.26, there is -- that is the statute under which you are
charged. There is an affirmative defense available under that statute.

THE DEFENDANT: Right.

THE COURT: You have not given notice of your intention to assert that defense.

THE DEFENDANT: And under Minnesota law, Dakota County Attorney's Office is
required to provide me with all of my evidence that would potentially exonerate me. And
so again, I'm --

THE COURT: So you are not -- you are not going to assert the defense.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to require that I get my evidence.

THE COURT: Because this will shorten the trial considerably. Essentially, if you fail --
the affirmative defense is that you reasonably believed your actions were necessary to
protect the children from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm. That is
the affirmative defense that is allowed by the statute.

THE DEFENDANT: Correct.

THE COURT: But in order to argue that or present any evidence concerning that, you
must provide notice of your intention to do so. Do you intend to rely on that defense?

THE DEFENDANT: I intend to rely on getting the correct information so that I can -- so I
don't have to speculate.

THE COURT: Well, this is -- so your options are to plead not guilty, which puts the
burden -- of course and the State has the burden of proof in any event to prove each and
every element of the charged offenses. But if you do not intend to assert a defense, the
affirmative defense, that narrows the scope of the evidence in this case considerably.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm choosing not to plead at this time. Again, I'm not going to be
intimidated and threatened into something without being able to adequately prepare. And
again, the settlement conference in March -- or before May, it was said all discovery shall
be exchanged. That needed to be provided to me. I requested that, and I shouldn't -again,
there's no law that requires me to go to the Dakota County Attorney's Office to review or
to have to beg for it. And again, there's no law that requires charging. Clearly it could
have been provided to me. Had there been information in there that would be against me,
then that would have been shoved down my throat quickly, so I've been put --

THE COURT: Have you consulted

THE DEFENDANT: -- at a disadvantage.

THE COURT: -- with an attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have. Uh-huh. So, I'd be put at a significant disadvantage,
again, because I haven't got the requests that I've made.

MS. KEENA: Your Honor, could we just inquire whether she consulted with a criminal
attorney rather than a family court attorney? I'm just curious the type of advice -- not
identifying who, but --

THE COURT: Well, it's -- it's Ms. Evavold's right. She has the absolute right to represent
herself, and even though the -- (pause) --

MS. KEENA: It's the discovery issue, and I when the Court's ready, I do want to make a
brief record on the discovery that was provided in this case.

THE COURT: The concern that I have right now is a complete -- Ms. Evavold's
disconnect from the questions that are being asked, and her answers are virtually
nonresponsive. There seems to be a disconnect of understanding.

THE DEFENDANT: I understand what my rights are, and I'm going to defend them
zealously, and that's what I've chosen to do --

THE COURT: Right.

THE DEFENDANT: -- and I do that with all of the correct information --

THE COURT: Okay.

THE DEFENDANT: -- to be able to do that.

THE COURT: I want you to be aware that you have the right to assert an affirmative
defense.

THE DEFENDANT: Correct.

THE COURT: Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And in -- an affirmative defense means you must step forward and say, "I
intend to present this defense," and if you don't do that, you will not be allowed to present
the defense. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Correct.

THE COURT: So -- and when I say, "Do you intend to assert the defense?" your answer
is, "I didn't get my discovery."

THE DEFENDANT: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: So in order to assert an affirmative defense -- I did this, I did whatever I
did based on a belief, a reasonable belief -- you must tell us that you intend to offer that
defense.

THE DEFENDANT: Again, I'm not going to submit an answer for that. If you're going to
proceed with a trial, I object to that.

THE COURT: Okay. Then in light of your failure to assert an affirmative defense
pursuant to Minnesota Statute 609.26, does the State wish to make any motion concerning
that matter or any evidence?
We had motions in limine yesterday, and I reserved rulings on some of those motions in
limine in order to provide the defense an opportunity to consider whether an affirmative
defense would be presented. And I reserved a ruling because some of the evidence might
be relevant should an affirmative defense be offered, but it is wholly irrelevant if the
affirmative defense is not offered.

THE DEFENDANT: I would assume that I would be able to determine what is and what
isn't relevant, so that - again, that's why I need to be provided with all of the information.

THE COURT: Yesterday you did not even pick up the jury questionnaires.

THE DEFENDANT: Correct. I'm not going to be participating in the jury selection.

THE COURT: Okay. We -- I -- we prepared jury questionnaires in order for you to

receive all of the information the -- that is available for this jury selection process. The
jury questionnaires were made available to you at 1:30 and to the State at 1:30, and as I
understand from our court administrator, that you did not pick them up by the close of
business; that they remain unretrieved at the court window, at the Criminal window.

And have you picked them up as of now?

THE DEFENDANT: No, they're sitting right here.

THE COURT: So we brought them to you.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Do you intend to participate -- do you intend to give an opening
statement?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to be deciding what my next report is to assure that this
obstruction of justice doesn't continue.

THE COURT: Do you --

THE DEFENDANT: And so I won't be participating in the jury selection.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE DEFENDANT: So you can do a lottery, if that's the way you want to do it.

THE COURT: The affirmative -- the rules contemplate that the notice of an affirmative
defense must be given in advance of the trial. I mean, the rule -- the rule says that it
should happen before the omnibus hearing.

In light of the failure to present a notice of affirmative defense -- we can defer these
motions in limine further, but certainly before opening statements, we need to renew the
motions in limine, especially those that I have ruled -- that I've deferred rulings on.

All right. Is the jury ready?

THE CLERK: I believe so, Judge.

____________________________________

Co-Defendant Sandra Grazzini-Rucki raised the affirmative defense at trial, meaning she
assisted her teenage daughters in running away because she feared for their safety.
Approximately 75 percent of the evidence her defense planned to use was disallowed by
Dakota County Judge Karen Asphaug. The jury was only presented with one side of the
story, that of Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn Keena, and was not allowed to
review evidence and supporting documentation or hear from crucial witnesses that would
provide additional information on the events leading up to when the Rucki sisters ran
away. This means the jury was not allowed to gain an understanding of the context in
which Sandra made her decision.

The State is also seeking to prohibit the defendant from introducing any alleged acts of
domestic assault allegedly committed by David Rucki against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. And
I don't know if the Court wants me to go through these one by one. They're -- they mirror
the motions that the State filed in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki trial.

Its clear that appellant was not given the chance to meaningfully respond to allegations and
that the trial was rigged.

REPLY ISSUE TWO RESTATED: PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF WITNESS

TAMPERING EXISTS IN THIS CASE IN VIOLATION OF MINN. STAT. 609.498.

Respondent stated that Appellant failed to detail exactly what misconduct the Respondent
engaged in. In support of her argument, Appellant points to an interview that was
conducted by law enforcement of SVR. Appellant is under the misbelief that the Respondent
somehow coerced SVR into providing the statement and that SVR lied in the statement.
There is not a scintilla of evidence to support Appellant's argument of witness tampering.

As stated in the June Appellant Brief, Appellant attempted to file a criminal complaint
with the Lakeville Police against David Rucki for witness tampering. Evidence shows
SVR only changed her statement after being forced against her will into a reunification
program with her abusive father shortly after being located.

The Lakeville police personnel claimed that Deputy Chief Kormann had them indicate that
they did not have any officers available to take the complaint. The video that is in
Appellants possession indicates two officers wandering around who could have taken the
valid complaint.

Appellant left numerous voicemails and sent numerous emails to Lakeville Mayor Matt
Little to make him aware of the witness tampering, harassment by the Lakeville police and
illegal withholding of evidence. He willfully refused to respond.

On June 24th, 2016, Appellant delivered the witness tampering complaint and illegal
withholding of evidence against the Dakota Co. Attorneys. Appellant was forced to do that
because Hastings Police Chief Bryan Schafer willfully refused to acknowledge receipt of
the emailed complaint. Gary Hird of the Lawyer's Professional Responsibility Board did.
Even though Appellant has audio and video evidence of delivering the complaint to
Lieutenant Joe Kegley, Chief Schafer willfully refused to email Appellant the public
portion of the police report filed against Backstrom, Prokopowicz and Kathryn Keena.

The evidence of this misconduct is outlined in the criminal complaint filed in Appellants
June 9, 2017 Brief.

Sentencing Hearing (PP. 13-17)

THE COURT: Ms. Evavold, what, if anything, would you like to tell me before I sentence
you?

THE DEFENDANT: Well, a fair trial includes the right to present a complete defense. I
was made aware that I was also not provided with information on Christina Fox, all of the
investigative data. I completed a consent form that was given to Stearns County to have
that released, and that was willfully refused to be provided to my husband, so I --again, I
didn't receive any of the preliminary audio statements on any of the witnesses, so I wasn't
given a fair trial and able to complete a defense.

THE COURT: Is there anything else?

THE DEFENDANT: Also the witness tampering that I was -- attempted to file a report on
that. And with Samantha, that she was brought in and encouraged to alter her testimony,
and that's a serious offense. So, I'm requesting that I be given a fair trial, a new trial, to be
able to have the evidence, review it thoroughly, and be able to use it to my benefit.

THE COURT: Do you wish to respond to the request for a new trial at this time?

MS. KEENA: Your Honor, the defendant did receive a fair trial in this matter. It was her
actions and her inaction in not wanting to participate under this false belief that she did not
receive all the discovery in this case. She received all the discovery in this case, and this
nonsense about Christina Fox and Stearns County, I have no idea what she's referring to.
She was given police reports that outlined what Christina Fox -- what information she
provided to the Lakeville Police Department. I have no idea what she's talking about in
relation to Stearns County.

And as far as Samantha's statement is concerned, Samantha testified at her mother's trial,
and the Court is well aware -- and perhaps Ms. Evavold wasn't in the courtroom at the
time, but the Court is well aware of what Samantha's testimony was, and she clearly
indicated that she was not forced to testify and that she was there on her own free will.
And so, this nonsense about pulling one little sentence out of Samantha's statement in
support of a new trial is ridiculous.

THE COURT: Well, the motion for a new trial or the request for a new trial is
denied. The issues that were raised by Ms. Evavold were repeatedly addressed
during the course of the trial, and we will proceed to sentencing at this time.

This raised the issue of a biased and unfair trial as well as the problems with her
impartiality handling all four cases as well as past criminal proceedings regarding David
Rucki. Which, again, she failed to address with Appellant per rules of procedure.

REPLY ISSUE III RESTATED: THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ENSURE

DEFENDANT WAS PROVIDED WITH ALL EVIDENCE TO ADEQUATELY
PREPARE FOR TRIAL.

Respondent states that Appellant was provided with all discovery which she knows is
inaccurate.

The District Court refused Appellants request for a continuance, after the District Court
gave the County an approximate 7-month continuance to review the voluminous amount
of evidence (not including relevant suppressed evidence), Appellants evidence was
illegally withheld until approximately 30 days before trial.

In the Omnibus Hearing dated March 7, 2016, the District Court stated in record, Is it
acceptable to you, so that you can get all the documents [to have a trial date in September]
I know, Only because I Im handling somethe other related cases, that the
discovery is voluminous; that there is a lot of e-mail evidence, some of which
pertained to you. I have not seenany of it for myself because I know it is still being
analyzed and its resulted in a companion case being continued.

The court for good cause must require the prosecutor to assist the defendant in seeking
access to specified matters relating to the case that are within the possession or control of
an official or employee of any governmental agency, but not within the prosecutors
control.

Again, Ms. Keena is not addressing the complaint at hand, and is actually perjuring herself
with regard to recorded interviews conducted of Lori Muslof dont exist. Appellant is in
possession of several of those recordings.

Respondent actually asserts that all law enforcement would not give preliminary audio
statements Is Appellant to believe that the law enforcement officers would not give such
evidence because the investigation is detailed in written reports? As previously noted, it
is standard operating procedure for law enforcement agencies to have preliminary audio
recordings to compare with testimony. Appellant finds it difficult to believe that
Respondent was unaware that David Rucki contacted Stearns County Police to get
approval to surveil Appellants residence, either by Rucki or by Stearns County Law
Enforcement when two girls are missing. Appellant came to this evidence after she was
convicted of this crime.

Respondent claims she was unable to make copies of the blu-ray disc.
www.leawo.net/blu-ray-copy
www.digital citizen.life/how-copy-disc-cd-dvd-or-blu-ray
www.topten reviews.com/blu-ray-to-blu-ray-copy-software

Incompetency is no excuse.
Further, Appellant was refused her evidence, even though only partial evidence, unless she
paid for it up front. Everyone knows that attorneys are provided evidence and billed They
are not required to pay upfront. Therefore, the Court cannot have it both ways. Respondent
is quoted in the transcripts as stating, (omnibus Hearing dated march7, 1016). she
(appellant) would have to prepay for discovery, which is our standard practice with Pro Se
clients.

Later, The Court states: As I told you yesterday, I am holding you to the same standards.
Because you are acting as your own attorney, I am holding you to the same standards as I
would an attorney.

With regard to child protection involvement. Clearly, they were involved and the record
reflects that Respondent was aware of that. I am aware that these records were available
from 2011 through 2015. (See the Dakota Co. Social Services Child Protection exhibit
obtained after Appellants conviction).

Specifically:

11/19/15 The children (SR and GR) do not want to return to dad and stated that they will run
if forced to return. Further, they discussed the past situation as chaotic between the parents as
dysfunction vs. abuse. Samantha currently talks about dad rubbing the inside of her thigh and
making comments about her breast size in the pastThey talk about dad being drunk at times
in the past. The big concern is that the girls run again if made to go home with father.
Everyone wants the girls to be safe until a transition can happen. Further, The girls say they
will not run from a foster home, but will run if they are returned home. And Sam went
through the family history with this worker. She was twelve when her parents divorced. Home
life was awful prior to the divorce. They tip-toed around dad and he was physically abusive to
her mom. She would have bruises here and there. Dad was rough with Sam on occasion where
he would grab her a few times and shook her. He was mostly emotionally abusive. Her dad
would make comments like your boobs are looking big, he would grab her leg and massaged
her and it never felt good, it was uncomfortable. He [David Rucki] drank a lot and was
often at the bars. Once they were not living with their dad (living with mom) there was no
more tip-toeing and no more yelling. Sam said it felt free in her own hoursSam states she
and her sister ranSam states knowing her mom was scared that dad was going to kill her.

GVR was interviewed on 11/23/2015. She reported that dad was always screaming at mom.
Neighbors called their home the Scream HouseMom would have bruises she has seen
him shove herher dad was emotionally abusive and it took a toll on all of us Her dad
would stalk the house when they were with their mom. He showed anger like Im going to
kill you ...one time after a hockey game her dad rubbed her inner thigh. Dad shoved mom
often. She does not want to live with him and still feels like he has control over her. She
does not feel mom played a role in her thoughts or feelings about her dad. Gianna states that
she will run if made to return to her dad. Next all information regarding the Court hearing
dated 11/30 was redacted, and then noted there was again much debate about the judge
allowing the children to return to dad. The girls voiced their opinions, wishes and concerns.
They do not want to return to dad. Court decision was to return children to dad for him to
arrange for the children to go to CA. Case closed.

Please also see the reports attached dated 7/16 and 7/12/ caller reports concerns of
emotional abuse. 2013 with similar reports.

On 08/30/2012, A reporter stated that father told the reporter 1.5 years ago that father held a
gun to the childs head when the child was eight years old Nico (age 16) stated to the
reporter today that one time father held a gun to the childs head when the child was eight
years old.

On 02/07/2012 CPS report stated, Report of physical abuse by father

On 02/06/2012, CPS reports, Calling to make a CP report.

On 02/03/2012 CPS report indicates, Child reports father said he would kill mother.

On 10/28/2011 CPS reports, Children report abuse and neglect/domestic violence by father.

On 07/28/2011 CPS reports Reported described that father violated existing OFP.
The district court erred, and the social service records should have been provided to
Appellant as 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 permits
prior consistent statements of a witness to be received as substantive evidence if they are
helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the credibility of the witness. " Further, the State
does not deny that "the girls" SVR and GJR made statements to child protection regarding
child abuse with their father as an identified perpetrator. This knowledge is the foundation
for Appellant's affirmative defense - a pattern of abuse committed against her children by
their father, and a need to protect them from imminent harm.

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO

JUDICIAL BIAS AND QUESTIONABLE IMPARIALITY.

Respondent completely fails to address this matter which shows that she wholeheartedly
supports this argument.

Judge Asphaug stated that the companion cases are not inexorably linked, yet she
continued to reference them throughout the Appellants and Co-defendants pre-trial
hearings, trial and sentencing hearings.

At the sentencing hearing, Ms. Keena states, As to the sentence that the State believes the
defendant should receive in this case, it's the State's position that Ms. Evavold should be
treated the same and receive the same sentence that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki received in her
case.

And why she remained silent and her rationale for doing so I think is more reprehensible
than actions taken by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. This defendant did it purposely for her
ideological beliefs about the family court system and her complete disregard for the family
court system and used - used the Rucki family and specifically those girls to try to prove a
point. And for that, she ought to be punished just as harshly as the mother was.
The Prosecutor is basically asking Judge Asphaug to be biased. This is akin to admitting
that Judge Asphaug was prejudiced when presiding over Appellants case, and reaffirms
the argument that it was unfair that she sat on all four cases.

In the article Doug and Gina Dahlen sentenced to jail, probation for role in
disappearance of Rucki sisters posted in Missing in Minnesota on May 2, 2017, Judge
Asphaug said that Grazzini-Rucki was motivated by vengence. She waged a personal
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.

In speaking to Evavolds motivation, Judge Asphaug stated she was motivated by

political ill will and distrust of government.

At the sentencing hearing Judge Asphaug once again stated, The mother of these children
was motivated by personal interest, but what was your interest in the Grazzini-Rucki
family? You're not a -- you are a stranger to this family. The mother perhaps was
motivated by animosity or malice towards the father. Perhaps her motivation was a
misplaced belief that the girls weren't safe, but what motivated you to become
involved? Not to become involved in but to intrude into the life of another family? Not
friendship for the girls or with the girls: You never met them before the day they were
taken from their home. Not friendship with their mother because you knew her only
briefly. We're left to wonder if you were motivated by political persuasion, by distrust of
the courts, by a desire to pursue an activist agenda of some sort.

There is no way to prove by a clear and convincing standard of evidence a person's quote
"ideological beliefs". If this is true, then Magistrate Maria Pastoor should not be on the
bench as she has said some radical things, and also condemned the family court system. In
fact, being punished for "ideological beliefs" qualifies as persecution and not prosecution.
Essentially, the prosecutor is stating that Appellant should be incarcerated for her beliefs.
Prior to Appellants trial, an article was also published in Sun Current, the hometown
newspaper of Lakeville, MN that states, Lakeville police said Grazzini-Rucki and a group of
people who distrust the courts worked against their efforts to find the girls.

Another article in the same publication states, During Sandra Grazzini-Ruckis Sept. 21
sentencing hearing, Judge Karen Asphaug expressed sympathy for the Lakeville mothers family,
whom she said are victims of their mothers actions.

Asphaug directly addressed David Rucki, Grazzini-Ruckis 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.

_____________________________________________

This clearly shows judicial bias as well as law enforcement alignment with the state. The
victim David Rucki, the media and the police were united in pushing the false narrative
of this case.

The judge also abused her discretion by vindictive and excessive sentencing. Deprivation
of parental rights is a severity-level one crime and Appellant had a criminal history score
of zero.

Jury Trial Volume IV (Pp. 401-402)

MS. KEENA: Ms. Evavold has always appeared for court, and I don't believe she poses a
flight risk. So, at this time, I would have no objection to her being released on her
personal recognizance on the same terms and conditions that were previously set by this
Court.

THE COURT: I -- I will not do that. I decline to follow the State's recommendation.

MS. KEENA: Okay.

THE COURT: Ms. Evavold was released on her own recognizance. Although she has
made all future [sic] court appearances, she now stands convicted of these offenses. She
has continually referred to these proceedings as fraud or sham proceedings, and I do
not have faith that she will appear for sentencing, nor do I have faith that she will obey the
no-contact orders that have been issued in this case. And at this point, I am going to take
Ms. Evavold into custody. I'm ordering a presentence investigation.

Ms. Evavold will be held body-only pending sentencing, and I'm going to schedule the
sentencing -- (pause) -- in light of the fact that much of the background work and the
victim impact has been conducted by the Community Corrections Department, I believe
we can accelerate the sentencing.

____________________________________________________

The probationary sentence keeps appellant under the court's supervision for eight years
and requires her to serve 15 days in jail each year, and to serve more jail time if she does
not fulfill her sentence-to-service obligation.

The court having chosen to impose concurrent sentences "exceeded its authority" by
making Appellants probationary terms consecutive. Moore, 340 N.W.2d at 673. Id.; see
also State v. Geller, 665 N.W.2d 514, 517 (Minn. 2003) ("absent a statement of the
reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no
departure will be allowed").
Disqualification was required as clearly Judge Karen Asphaug demonstrated a personal
bias and prejudice concerning the Appellant. The only explanation for the adverse ruling is
bias.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge should be disqualified [under 28 U.S.C.
455(a)] only if it appears that he or she harbors an aversion, hostility, or disposition of a
kind that a fair-minded person could not set aside when judging the dispute.

The original misconduct by Dakota County has undermined the case against defendant
permanently.

Because the errors committed by that Court are so grave, the order should require the
dismissal of convictions and award of fees paid. To charge the Appellant with six felonies,
forced incarceration etc. was inhumane.

CONCLUSION

Appellant submits the totality of the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion
of parental deprivation. All of the evidence supports a finding that Appellant should never
have been charged, much less convicted of the alleged crime. Appellant asks that this Court
reverse the decision of the trial court.

DATED:_________________ Respectfully submitted,

By _________________________________
Deirdre Evavold
3015 30th Street Court So.
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 293-6233

PRO SE APPELLANT