Bombshell: Sandra Rucki Hearing $2.4M Life Insurance Policy Received

Sandra Rucki, Mugshot

Sandra Rucki – Parental Kidnapper

Michael Brodkorb of the Star Tribune is reporting from West St. Paul Court Hearing for the Sandra Rucki Case.

  • Undisclosed Bank Records — In 2010, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki secretly received $2.4 million from a life insurance policy. Her father died in 2010. Sandra Rucki used banks in Las Vegas to access and transfer portions of the money.
  • Marriage to Michael Rhedin — There is speculation that Sandra Rucki married Michael Rhedin. He was wearing a wedding ring at the court hearing. They may have been married abroad.
  • U.S. Passport — In November 2015, Sandra Rucki’s attorney Michelle MacDonald said she didn’t have a passport. In the recent court hearing, MacDonald said she had a passport.
  • Child Support — Sandra Rucki owes $6,963.69 in unpaid child support.
  • April 2016 — the next court hearing.


Twitter: @mbrodkorb

Editor’s Note: At a Criminal Trial Hearing, Michelle MacDonald wanted the court to appoint her as a public defender and for Dakota County to pay her fee.  MacDonald also tried to collect over $200,000 in legal fees owed her. Now it is disclosed that Sandra Rucki was hiding a portion of $2.4 million dollars. Now they need to check Michael Rhedin’s bank records to see if Rucki hid the money in his name.

It’s sounding more like Sandra Rucki wasn’t interested in raising her children. So she sends her daughters to live on a ranch and is found at a luxurious resort in Florida with a male companion. What kind of mother is that?





24 Responses to Bombshell: Sandra Rucki Hearing $2.4M Life Insurance Policy Received

  1. It sounds like she has enough money to jump bail and harm S and G all over again. I hope the judge in this case will freeze mom’s assets so she can’t access them until her hearing is over.

    • underwatch says:

      These protective moms continue to surprise me. This DA is Minnesota will be one of the first to prosecute the parental kidnapper/protective mom and three third party conspirators. I too hope that the judge will freeze her assets so some of that money can go to the children, therapy and their education. I wonder if the girls knew about the money. Although surely $2M might go quickly with her attorney fees and lifestyle.

  2. Kristi Rush says:

    More interesting to me (especially after reading the RIDICULOUS court transcript and seeing first hand how willing Sandra Rucki’s attorney, Michelle McDonald, is to participate in) the games and nonsense at EVERYONE’s expense. Not just the children- which truly is the most painful part of the story- but to every person who pays taxes that go towards the staff and facilities at the court level and in the county attorney offices. When Vargas asked Rucki again about police reports Rucki had claimed existed and told her they could NOT locate them, Rucki then turned it on her attorney and claimed the attorney had the reports and pictures of injuries. The stumbling and stammering of her attorney was almost comical. She finally agrees that the reports are indeed in the boxes in her office so the ABC crew goes to get them and is presented with a wall of disorganized chaos that had clearly been messed up in order to circumvent and hope of finding ANYTHING- much less the nonexistent reports. Incredibly pathetic and that attorney needs to be disbarred quickly. Her antics are ridiculous.

  3. Margo/Mom says:

    Is Michelle McDonald the current attorney? I thought I had read that Mom had somebody new. This was certainly no surprise. Michelle McDonald seems to have, as they say, “issues.”

    • underwatch says:

      Yes, I recollect Stephen Grigsby was her criminal attorney and Michelle MacDonald her Family Law Attorney. Not sure when the 20/20 segment was shot where MacDonald appears to be acting as her criminal attorney too.

      • Two of Sandra Rucki’s supporters, going by the names Terry Hatsford and Jim Walters, are leaking sensitve documents that claim that David Rucki was abusive towards Sandra, and the girls.
        It’s sick what these people are doing. Calling me uninformed and accusing me of working for David Rucki.

      • underwatch says:

        These protective parent criminal trials became new forums for some shady or extremist supporters. The protective parents know this and despite their perceived position against family violence, they might feel they have a self-appointed license to harass others. It is horrible that they are harassing a victim’s advocate like you. I agree, they should be ashamed of themselves.

      • I didn’t even try to defend myself against these two creeps. I bet they don’t even have anything to do with the Rucki Sister’s case. They’re just a pair of blowhardts that are just blowing smoke.
        I’m neither asociated with the David Rucki or anyone who’s close to him.

    • Kristi Rush says:

      If you haven’t read this, do it now. The ridiculousness exhibited by McDonald should have gotten her disbarred. It’d disgusting that she is allowed to continue

      • Kristi Rush says:
      • Margo/Mom says:

        The transcript is purely astonishing. First that McDonald apparently continues to hold a license to practice law and second that Grazzini-Rucki continues to employ her. That fact alone should call G-R’s sanity into question.

  4. Margo/Mom says:

    Following Sandra Rucki’s trial via Michael Brodkorb’s twitter. There has been a claim that the Dad called the son to make threats, punctuated by six gunshots. Brodkorb says the prosecutor has made the claim that the gunshot sound emanated from Michael Rhedin’s computer.

    • underwatch says:

      #bombshell – the protective moms like Sandra Rucki in these cases seem to have some spell over men like Michael Rhedin #michaelrhedin

      • woodenickles says:

        The Prosecution shut down Sandra’s attorney today and it was long overdue. For years Sandra has been harping relentless that the father called her shooting off a gun, saying he had six bullets to murder his family. It’s been Sandra’s “silver bullet” as to affirmative defense. Now, today for the first time in court, the whole thing was exposed. As told to us by the prosecution, it was revealed that Sandra’s boyfriend made the recording and the prosecution said they had proof.

        Sandra has not had any contact with her children other then supeoning her daughter so she can get her on the stand to examine her. Why wouldn’t a parent want to protect her child that life long trama event?

      • underwatch says:

        Wow, does this mean that Sandra cannot use the “Affirmative Defense” / “Necessity Defense”? If so then it sounds like the prosecutor has caught this protective mom in a lie and he has his own “smoking gun”. Is this why the judge expects the trial to last only a few weeks? Sandra needs to take her plea now.

  5. woodenickles says:

    No, it was made very clear for over an hour in court that once Sandra turned down the plea is would NEVER be offered to her again. It was a one time deal only. She was very set in going to trail.

  6. Margo/Mom says:

    Brodkorb reported that Sandra’s attorney lectured her strongly during a break about her “attitude” in court. I wonder if it had to do with her turning down the plea agreement. Apparently he also ushered Michelle McDonald from the courtroom (she is a witness?) and the judge barred a supporter who was both leafletting and announcing Sandra’s innocence.

    I wonder if any of these folks overlap with the sovereign citizen movement (illness). Evavold seems bent on shooting herself in the foot (representing herself; papering the court with claims of a “rigged case”).

    • woodenickles says:

      Hi Margo/mom:
      Big fan of your writing, nicely work!
      Yes, indeed the yelling from Sandra’s attorneys was so loud that it could be heard 50 feet way behind closed doors. A bailiff was called and yes he did want her to plea. Everyone wanted her to plea, including the Prosecution to spare having a child be cross examined and testify against her mother.
      But she turned it down.
      Michelle is confused that she got barred from court, she’s not barred and not on the witness list. Grigsby Sandra’s criminal attorney in this case escorted her out of the court.
      The older gentleman (80 yrs ?) was passing out flyers and trying to tell potential jurors as they were on the way out that Sandra was innocent. He can’t do that in court and will be asked to leave.
      Also, there seems to be more yelling by which I mean SCREAMING by Grigsby this morning at Sandra.

  7. woodenickles says:

    Not to mention that one of Sandra’s boyfriends Mike was yelling at people in the parking lot. The defense is in chaos. They aren’t going to be able to prove Affirmative Defense, they have no evidence. The attorneys pretty much seem unhinged and slightly deranged IMO. However the judge is absolutely perfect for this trial; super calm, respectful and seems well read. When Grigsby tried to tacitly threaten by citing Minnsota vs. Rice the judge shutdown that effortless.

    • underwatch says:

      These criminal cases are not litigated that often. The “affirmative defense”, “necessity defense”, “competing harms” is usually critical. If the judge disallows the use of the “affirmative defense”, then there isn’t much of a defense. That has occurred in a number of cases and the protective mom plead guilty immediately thereafter. Hopefully, a Minnesota Defense Attorney will weigh in. Usually the protective mom will want to re-litigate her custody case as her defense. Hopefully, the judge will not allow that.

    • underwatch says:

      Isn’t Michael Rhedin a defense or prosecution subpoenaed witness int he case? Why would he be allowed in the courtroom before his testimony?

      • woodenickles says:

        He wasn’t in the courtroom. Just outside yelling at reporters.

      • underwatch says:

        That would seem like a huge red flag to the Criminal and Family Law Courts and Law Enforcement. There is freedom of speech and then there is safety of the victim family members and witnesses in this Criminal Trial. That’s the part of the Protective Parent / Family Court Critic Movements that is extremely disturbing. They portray themselves victims of the system yet, they appear to have granted themselves a free license to break laws, fabricate evidence and harm others. It seems the DV Community does nothing to discourage this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: