State of Minnesota District Court

County Judicial District: First

Dakota Court File Number: 19AV-CV-17-1950
Case Type: Harassment

David Rucki

Petitioner
Notice of Objection and Motion to Vacate
Minn. Stat. 609.748
vs

Deirdre Evavold

Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________________

I am the Respondent in this action. I was personally served with a false ex-parte
harassment restraining order by the Stearns County Sheriff on 7/31/2017.

I am submitting a notice of objection and motion to vacate the Ex-Parte

Harassment Restraining Order granted to petitioner David Rucki.

The petitioner has failed to state a claim and no law creates a right for the
petitioner to receive the harassment restraining order by Judge Karen Asphaug.
The bases for this motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum.

Dakota County Western Service Center

14955 Galaxie Ave. West
Apple Valley, MN 55124

Brian Jones ___________________________

First Judicial District Administrator Deirdre Evavold
Dakota County Judicial Center 3015 30th Street Ct. South
1560 Highway 55 St. Cloud, MN 56301
Hastings, MN 55033-2392
Chief Judge Kathryn Davis Messerich
First Judicial District
Dakota County Judicial Center
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033-2392
State of Minnesota District Court
County Judicial District: First
Dakota Court File Number 19AV-CV-17-1950
Case Type: Harassment

David Rucki

Petitioner MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO VACATE
vs Minn. Stat. 609.748

Deirdre Evavold

Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________________

FACTS

Petitioner David Rucki sought a Harassment Restraining Order on behalf of

himself, his adult daughter and 3 minor children on 7/27/2017. Order Granting
Petition for Ex-Parte Harassment Restraining Order was signed by Judge Karen
Asphaug on 7/28/2017. Respondent was personally served with the HRO by the Stearns
County Sheriff on 7/31/2017.

In Petitioners Affidavit and Petition, he claimed Respondent has engaged in online

harassment of myself and my family in direct violation of court ordered probation.
Respondent continues to post on a blog owned by respondent about myself and my family
including false allegations, photos and identifying information.

Petitioner also indicated that Respondent continues to post information about my

family, photos of my home, myself and other members of my family. Respondent also
continues to make allegations that are false but may incite others against me. My children
are frightened for their safety and feel their privacy has been violated.
 ARGUMENTS

The district court must make specific findings as to allegations of harassment before it
may issue a restraining order. See Mechtel v. Mechtel, 528 N.W.2d 916, 920-21 (Minn.
App. 1995). The district court may issue an Ex-Parte HRO where the petitioner alleges
an immediate and present danger of harassment, provided that it finds reasonable
grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment. Minn. Stat. 609.748,
subd. 4(a), (b). Petitioner made vague references vs. specific, factual instances to
substantiate the harassment allegations.

The district court, Judge Asphaug, abused its discretion in issuing the malicious HRO
because the courts findings were insufficient to support the conclusion that harassment had
occurred. Harassment is defined as repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts,
words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a
substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the
relationship between the actor and the intended target. Minn. Stat. 609.748, subd. 1(a)
(1). The key component of harassment is that it is unconsented contact or surveillance that
endangers safety and privacy. Inappropriate or argumentative statements alone are not
considered harassment. Kush, 683 N.W.2d at 844.

David Rucki failed to prove substantial adverse effects on respondents safety,

security, or privacy. The HRO petition does not cite any dates or incidents of harassment or
threatening behavior. The HRO petition also does not include any evidence, witness
statements or police reports indicating harassment or threats. The HRO petition refers to a
blog, but the blog in question is not named, nor is there any evidence offered that
Evavold actually owns the blog in question. There is a box on the affidavit that states,
Respondent frightened the victim with threatening behavior as follows that is left blank.
If David Rucki was truly frightened or in fear of his safety, it is not indicated. Reasonable
or any grounds have NOT been proven here. There is no evidence of any kind of a threat
to safety, security, or otherwise. Interestingly enough, David Rucki admitted to conducting
surveillance (after consulting local police) at Respondents house in St. Cloud. Finding
normal goal for Lakeville dad after missing daughters found, By Laura Adelman, Sun This
Week Published August 18,2016.

Respondent also filed a criminal witness tampering complaint against the petitioner on
June 24, 2016. Petitioner sent harassing and threatening extortion letters from his attorney to
intimidate and coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra Grazzini-Ruckis criminal
case No. 19HA-CR-15-2669 as well as coercing his daughter into recanting her testimony.
By filing the HRO, the petitioner is violating 609.498 Tampering With Witness
by: retaliating against a person who was summoned as a witness at any criminal trial within
a year following that trial or within a year following the actors release from
incarceration, and retaliating against any person who has provided information to law
enforcement authorities concerning a crime within a year of that person providing the
information or within a year of the actors release from incarceration, whichever is later.

This was clearly premeditated as sentencing conditions imposed on Respondent at the

November 10th, 2016 sentencing hearing by Judge Karen Asphaug include: No Violations of
An Active Civil/Criminal No Contact Order, Abide by any active OFP's, Harassment
Restraining Orders, and No Contact Orders. 11/10/2016, Active 11/10/2016, No violations
of an Order for Protection,11/10/2016, No Threatening or Assaultive Behavior, 11/10/2016,
Active 11/10/2016. Respondent has never had an OFP, HRO/No Contact Order or ever been
charged with any threatening or assaultive behavior however, the petitioner has. That Judge
Karen Asphaug quickly issued an HRO against respondent with absolutely no evidence to
support any of the claims made is a sharp contrast to the role she played in dismissing a
serious charge of disorderly conduct against Rucki that involved harassment and threats. The
police report filed from this incident includes remarks from Rucki that suggest he knew that
if criminal charges were filed, the court would rule in his favor.

CONCLUSION

The ex-parte HRO is one more example that the rules and laws dont apply to David
Rucki as he did not have to meet the required burden of proof to prove that harassment or
threats have occurred

The HRO is simply continued malicious harassment against the respondent by petitioner
and Dakota County and demonstrates further judicial bias by Judge Karen Asphaug.
Harassment is a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1000 fine.
Dakota County is intentionally attempting to redefine harassment and set respondent up to be
tossed back in jail to stop the exposure of the substantial corruption in Dakota County.
 This order needs to be vacated because petitioner has not identified any incidents where
respondent has contacted him/family, had contact with him, [or] interfered with his safety,
security or otherwise at any period in time. David Rucki has failed to identify anything
whatsoever that could be legitimately construed as anything close to harassment, especially
when you look at the requirements of the statute that require that there be repeated incidences
of unwanted, intrusive contacts that affect the safety and security of the person seeking the
order. There is no evidence that Respondent has done anything that justifies an HRO and the
order is void.

Since granting the HRO is what triggers the public-disclosure requirement, logic dictates
that HROs should be granted sparingly and only when immediate relief is clearly necessary
to prevent serious consequences. Regardless of further actions by the court, damage to the
Respondents record is already done.

Dated: _______________________ _________________________________

Deirdre Evavold
3015 30th Street Ct. South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 293-6233