SharonsVideo Bar


Thursday, July 20, 2017


Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions LILLEHAUG RULE

Docket: A15-1795
Opinion Date: July 19, 2017
Judge: David L. Lillehaug
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law
The Supreme Court declined Appellants’ invitation to depart from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) and hold that Minnesota’s constitution requires that an administrative search warrant be supported by probable cause of the sort required in a criminal investigation. Camara held that an administrative warrant satisfies the probable cause requirement if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an unconsented-to rental housing inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling. In this case, the City of Golden Valley petitioned the district court for an administrative search warrant to search rental property for compliance with the city code. The district court denied the petition for the administrative search warrant, concluding that the issuance of such a search warrant was foreclosed without suspicion of a code violation. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Minnesota Constitution does not require individualized suspicion of a code violation to support an administrative search warrant for a rental housing inspection.
Read Opinion

Wiebesick v. Golden Valley | Cato Institute
Wiebesick v. Golden Valley. By Bennett Evan Cooper, William K. Forbes, and Ilya Shapiro. September 29, 2016. In Kyllo v. United States, the late Justice Antonin ...

City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick :: 2017 :: Minnesota Supreme Court ... › ... › Minnesota Supreme Court Decisions › 2017
7 hours ago - In this case, the City of Golden Valley petitioned the district court for an administrative search warrant to search rental property for compliance ...

Tenants' privacy rights should be protected -
Jan 18, 2016 - Minnesotans — and in particular, tenants in Golden Valley — have a new ... rental property of Jason and Jacki Wiebesick to check that they are, ...

Golden Valley Couple Calls Housing Inspection A Violation Of Privacy ...
Jan 19, 2016 - The case involves Jason and Jackie Wiebesick's Golden Valley duplex. The city was requesting an inspection in order to renew the couple's ...

Golden Valley v. Wiebesick | ACLU of Minnesota
Challenging suspicion-less rental house inspectionsCASE UPDATEThe district court did not uphold that rental houses should require a warrant, based on ...

[PDF]In re the Application for an Administrative Search ... -
Jun 13, 2016 - In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant,. City of Golden Valley, petitioner,. Appellant, vs. Jason Wiebesick,. Respondent,.

NOTICE:  This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. This E-mail is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.

Saturday, July 8, 2017


                            Sat.8July2017    SCAP COMMITTMENT MEMBERS

         Affiant has published Complaints as Higgs Black Probate Judge issued Restraining Orders vs. Sharon in the Darlen Winter Case
complicit with DSI inspector Ed Smith,
                    Affiant VA Widow has published Affidavits of Prejudice vs. Kathleen R. Gearin, Gregg E. Johnson Joanne M. Smith Lesbians.
                   Bill Dahn has had troubles with Maryberth Dorn, et al
                   Judge Karen J. Asphaug has major issues complicit with Dakota Co in the Matter of Sam Grazzini Rucki ie Sandra, Dede Evwald, on File
                  Leslie Metzen in the Matter and Death of Alice Krengel and MaryJane Duchene  re Property Rights.
                        Further Affiant Sayeth not,,  Complaints under Construction
Preliminary Notice to John Choi 87 Countys and Sheriff s. et al

Sent: 7/6/2017 8:11:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: SCAP Order has been docketed
Here it is, Sharon.
NOTICE:  This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. This E-mail is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.


Monday, March 27, 2017


                             Further We must Abolish State Committment Panel Chaired by Judge
Karen Asphaug

ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower,

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:
v. Arch. 

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Judge Neil Gorsuch vs. Committment Judges Karen Asphaug,JoanneSmith,KathleenGearin

Judge Neil Gorsuch  said


will receive equal protection under the law and due process for their grievances.  
Remember that Landfall is a Federal HUD / HRA  Mobile Home Park,

Not a privately own Park..



Tonight: ABC’s ’20/02′ encore presentation of episode about Grazzini-Rucki

Tonight at 9PM, ABC’s “20/20” is rebroadcasting their episode which focused on the disappearance of Samantha and Gianna Rucki. The sisters were taken by their mother near their home on the night of April 19, 2013, during a custody and divorce dispute involving their parents – Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki.
Grazzini-Rucki has tried to stop the rebroadcast of the episode of ABC’s “20/20” which found no documentation to verify Grazzini-Rucki’s claim that she was abused by David Rucki. Grazzini-Rucki has taken to Facebook, calling the show “rank propaganda” and encouraging people to register complaints.
Grazzini-Rucki caught in lie on “20/20”
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki hides her face after being confronted about her lies. Picture source: 20/20
During the show, ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas confronted Grazzini-Rucki about her pattern of lying, specifically about her claim that she hadn’t seen her daughters in years.
“Well, all I’m telling you is you sat right here and spent half an hour telling me you hadn’t seen or spoken to your daughters. And I’ve now spoken to three people who tell us, in fact, that’s a lie. So if you were lying to me about that, what else might you be lying to me about?
Vargas was correct to confront Grazzini-Rucki about her extensive record of lying and making false allegations.
During her criminal trial, Grazzini-Rucki testified that she had been repeatedly “dishonest” when she previously testified under oath in her divorce and custody proceeding with her ex-husband, David Rucki.
Since being convicted in July 2016 on six felony counts of deprivation of parental rights, Grazzini-Rucki and her supporters have continued their behavior of making false allegations against David Rucki, his family, the media, law enforcement, and the judiciary.
A page was published on Missing in Minnesota to provide verifiable facts and primary source documents to refute false statements and fabricated incidents made by Grazzini-Rucki and her supporters.
ABC’s “20/20” found no evidence to support Grazzini-Rucki’s claims of abuse
Elizabeth Vargas questions Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Michelle MacDonald about claims of abuse. Picture source: 20/20
Grazzini-Rucki was married to David Rucki in 1991. 19 years later, Grazzini-Rucki filed for divorce. In her initial petition for divorce, Grazzini-Rucki made no allegations of abuse against David Rucki, nor did she claim David Rucki abused their children.
It was only after the initial divorce decree was dismissed “based on fraud and misrepresentation by [Grazzini-Rucki], among other reasons” did Grazzini-Rucki start accusing David Rucki of abusing her, and their children.
To date, David Rucki has never been criminally charged with abuse against Grazzini-Rucki or any of their children, nor has any credible or verifiable allegation of abuse been made against David Rucki.
During the airing of the episode of ABC’s “20/20” focused on the disappearance of her daughters, Grazzini-Rucki repeated the false allegations that she has made in the past about David Rucki.
Later in the show, Vargas said they found no evidence to support Grazzini-Rucki’s claims.
After the show was broadcast last April, 20/20 released the following statement via Facebook about Grazzini-Rucki’s allegation of abuse:
IN RESPONSE TO FRIDAY’S ‪#‎ABC2020‬ BROADCAST: The police reports that have been posted refer to alleged incidents after Sandra filed for divorce. 20/20 obtained all of these police reports from the Lakeville Police months ago and carefully reviewed them, prior to our visit to Michelle MacDonald’s office. As we stated in our report on Friday night, Lakeville police has “no record of ever being contacted by Sandra about abuse during her marriage.” In our interview with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki , she repeatedly claimed there were photographs and police reports from before she filed for divorce to prove her allegations of physical abuse. To this date, neither she nor the Lakeville Police department have produced documentation to support those claims. As we stated in our report, after filing for divorce, Sandra “gets an order of protection against David, and then calls police on him at least 20 times.” He was charged with violating the order of protection for contacting Sandra’s neighbor, but none of her allegations of abuse resulted in any charges.
As noted above, the Lakeville police department has said that they have no record of ever being contacted by Grazzini-Rucki about abuse during her marriage to David Rucki.
Missing for 944 days
On November 18, 2015 – 944 days after they disappeared – the Rucki sisters were found living on a Dahlen’s ranch by law enforcement, headed by the Lakeville Police Department. In total, the sisters were held at the White Horse Ranch for 942 days.
David Rucki was awarded full custody of all five of his children in November 2013, while two of his daughters remained missing. David Rucki was reunited with his daughters days after they were found on a rural ranch in northern Minnesota. They live with him and their other siblings at the family’s home in Lakeville.
The Dakota County Attorney’s Office charged four adults for their involvement in the disappearance of the Rucki sisters for 944 days.
The owners of the White Horse Ranch, Doug and Gina Dahlen, each pleaded guilty in January to one count of depravation of parental rights for their role in the disappearance of two sisters. The Dahlens will both be sentenced on May 2, 2017, at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings. Their ranch is currently for sale.