10 aa 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In the Marriage of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki Plaintiff, _ vs. David Victor Rucki, HEARING Defendant . District Ct. File No. 19AV-FA-11-1273 ‘The above-entitled matter came duly on for hearing before the Honorable Philip Kanning, Judge of District Court, on the 17th day of November 2015, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, in the city of Hastings, state of Minnesota. APPEARANCES: Michelle MacDonald, Esquire, of the firm of MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, 1069 South Robert Street, West St. Paul, MN 55118, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. Lisa Elliott, Esquire, of the firm of Elliott Law Offices, > P.A., 2409 West 66th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55423, appeared on behalf of the Defendant. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 ay 1g 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 ‘THE COUR’ Good afternoon, folks. Okay. the matter of the marriage of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner. She's here today. Michelle MacDonald is with her. David Rucki is here with Lisa Elliott, and what's your name? NEWS REPORTER: Me? ‘THE COURT: Yeah. NEWS REPORTER: I write for the Star Tribune. THE COURT: Oh, Have you got a name? NEWS REPORTER: Michael Brodkorb (ph). THE COURT: Okay MS. ANDERSON: Brea Anderson THE COURT: Access point for all the emails that are coming and going. First of all, I didn't know that your client was in Ramsey County, so we only just issued the transport order at 10:00 when I found out that she was not here. Did you have enough time to talk with her this afternoon, Ms. MacDonald? MS. MAC DONALD: Yes. HE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, we have the original motion that you filed that was to be heard on September 29th, and then we had your responsive motion to Ms. MacDonald's motion. Now, Ms. MacDonald, the first motion that you filed was asking for a withdrawal as counsel of record. Are you DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a. 12 13 14 as 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 submitting that to me today? MS, MAC DONALD: No, Your Honor. That was withdrawn when my motion -- THE COURT: Okay. Good. MS. MAC DONALD: -- five days ago. THE COURT: So, as you-noted to the court at the last court appearance, and you now have your client seated next to you, you're appearing on her behalf today? MS. MAC DONALD: Yes, T've been appearing on her behalf throughout this proceeding THE COURT: Sure. This is the first time you've actually had your client live, in person, in the courtroom? MS. MAC DONALD: Before you, yes. THE COURT: So, okay. Before I listen to Ms. MacDonald's motion with respect to the money that's currently being held in your trust account, Ms. Elliott, why don't you bring me up to date on what happened following my last order that provided for distribution -- MS, ELLIOTT: Sure.’ THE COURT: -- in the event we didn't hear from Ms. Grazzini-Rucki personally. MS. ELLIOTT: Sure. 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 marital debts was granted subject to a DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 11 12 13 1a 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 stay, In that stay, that stay was for ten days, which would give Ms. Grazzini-Rucki the time to comply with your order, number one, which indicated -- required her within ten days of the date of filing: Petitioner shall provide to Ms. Elliott, myself, Mr. Donehower, and the court her current address, telephone number and email address, as well as any other residential addresses which she has resided in the last four months. As of August 11th, which was the 11th day after you issued your order, we had not received that information. So, pursuant to your order in paragraph four, which states In the event petitioner fails to comply with number 1 as set forth above -- which I just read into the record -- the court will conclude the petitioner is waiving any nonmarital claims to these assets and respondent's attorney, after written notice to all parties, may immediately begin settling the various individual joint debts pursuant to her August 10th letter and the september 29th hearing shall be canceled. So, on September 11th, we sent out notice to everybody, and -- that we intended to start paying off the debts, and we immediately proceeded to do so, ‘The debts that have been paid and satisfied to date, there's Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's debt to Valarie Benning, who is a court reporter, has been satisfied. A debt of Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's to her sister, Ann Grazzini-Dunne, has been satisfied. A debt of Ms. Grazzini-Rucki to a John Levy has been satisfied. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a 12 13 14 1s 16 a7 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 : Page 5 Her debt to Bank of the West for a speed boat debt has been satisfied. Then the joint marital debts that have been satisfied are a Wells Fargo credit card, a U.S. Bank credit card, 2009 federal taxes, Brackett's golf membership, Fred and Vicky Rucki, and also Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's $10,000 attorney's fees owed to my office was also paid from that. So, so far what has been paid out, we received $139,338.91 in August of the funds that we're going to use to distribute. We received another final distribution in September or October of $9,028.49, ‘The only amount that remains in our trust account is $16,972.39. And since there was an additional distxibution from GFP that the court had not been aware of and had not addressed, that money is still in the trust account. However, 1 do have an agreement from the last remaining debt, that at least we were aware of, to U.S, Bank for the pontoon that was awarded to Ms, Grazzini-Rucki, that the original debt for that is 33,455.39, and they are willing to accept the 16,972 to satisfy that debt, I just need court approval, and then everybody has been paid. THE COURT: So, then -- and you had set that out in a letter, an email, so with that final payment, assuming that is approved, and as I understand it, the whereabouts of the pontoon is unknown? MS. ELLIOTT: It's unknown. It was awarded to DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 1a 12 13 14 as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 6 Ms. Grazzini-Rucki in the judgement and decree, but it's disappeared. THE CouRT But they would release their lien? MS, ELLIOTT: They would release the lien. We would ask if it is ever located, that it be sold and the proceeds be distributed between these two parties. THE COURT: Okay. MS. ELLIOTT: Or used -- THE COURT: We can talk about that. But including in the settlement that you were able to facilitate was the IRS lien? MS. ELLIOTT: Yes, we were able to satisfy that. I have copies of all of the checks and the satisfactions and the releases, copies for the court and for Ms. MacDonald, if she would like them, THE COURT: Are there any other obligations either for petitioner or the respondent? MS, ELLIOTT: There is one debt for Katz and Manka for $20,000 that is Ms. Grazzini-Rucki's, but it was a lien -- an attorney lien put on the house, and they didn't perfect it. I mean, they didn't file suit within a year. We're having a hard time getting them to release it, but that was for her first attorney in the dissolution. THE COURT: But that wouldn't be your responsibility or obligation anyway. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s Page 7 MS. ELDIOTT: The only concern is that it's attached to the house that Mr. Rucki owns. THE COURT: He's currently in. MS. ELLIOT: But, again, if they try to enforce it, it wasn't perfected. We're just having a hard time getting them to cooperate. Those are the only debts we were made aware of, ‘tHE COURT: Thanks for bringing me up to speed on that. Okay Ms. MacDonald, let's move on to your motion that essentially you were asking for payment of your attorney's lien because at our last court appearance, you made note that you had filed the attorney's lien. I guess the reason why T authorized the distribution from Ms. Elliott's trust account in the sense that I ruled against you is that all of those obligations had been set forth by earlier court order and were already established and essentially determined that they then had priority over your attorney's lien. We're now dealing with a balance of approximately $17,000, and I assume that your client is unable to make any payments on the original lien amount, so what is the current amount that she owes you up until this present court appearance? MS. MAC DONALD: I filed a néw lien, Your Honor ‘THE COURT: When did you do that? MS. MAC DONALD: My lien starts from January 3rd, DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 Page 8 2015, so any money coming in to the case is subject to my What's the total amount of your various liens, though, as you are presenting them? MS, MAC DONALD: Let me just find it. The one I filed, I think the most recent one, was for $193,190.05. THE COURT: Okay. Is that -- MS. MAC DONALD: Your Honor, there was also -- THE COURT: Is that in addition to the earlier one or does that include the earlier one? 1 thought the earlier one was significantly higher MS, MAC DONALD: The earlier one was included. THE COURT: So you think up until today's hearing, this is the total amount of the lien that you're seeking from your client -- MS. MAC DONALD: Right, THE COURT: -- for your attorney's fees? Ms. MAC DONALD: Also, Your Honor, I did file, and this is of record here, an $11,000 lien on the Hennepin County case that transferred over to this action ‘THE COURT: Okay. MS. MAC DONALD: But before we proceed with my lien, Your Honor, I'd like to note for the record that your order and memorandum, dated August 31, 2015, stayed the distribution of funds, and that stay order -- and never DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT9 10 1. 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9 struck the hearing of September 29, 2015. Ms. Elliott moved it to today because she was unavailable. Your order was, stayed, and Ms. Grazzini-Rucki, myself on her behalf, did in fact comply with number one of your order that stated that within ten days of the date of filing of this order, the petitioner shall provide to Ms, Elliott, Mr. Donehower and the court, her current address, telephone number and email address. On September 10th, I efiled that information. 1 efiled it to you, to Ms. Elliott, to Mr. Donehower, so my -- to my surprise Ms. Elliott, who was entrusted with over $500,000 in funds, just proceeded to distribute those funds, and there's evidence here of that happening. It's unjustifiable, Your Honor, and it makes this hearing completely moot because this hearing was scheduled so that Ms, Grazzini-Rucki could be here to -- under the guise of your giving her an opportunity to present her nonmarital claim to all of the funds. So, this hearing today is moot. There's no justification for Ms. Elliott's behaviors with her trust funds in this action. Your Honor, Ms. Elliott has misrepresented to the court my -- what an attorney's lien entails. An attorney's lien starts from the commencement of the action, as my memo indicated, so any money that comes into the action is subject to attorney's liens, any money. Firat and foremost, the attorney's liens are paid. Ms. Blliott circumvented my lien DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 Page 10 by just ignoring it. She just paid money out of -- of trust. She has been enabled by her -- her actions have been enabled. THE COURT: Well, I respectfully disagree. I don't think your client did in fact comply with my order, nor did you, though. What I got from you on September 11th was your notice to withdraw as counsel, which I considered to be essentially I really didn't have to even act on it, You can do that by virtue of filing with the court a notice to withdraw. You provided an address for your client, or what I considered to be your former client, in Connecticut, 1 believe, and I didn't believe that you had complied with that, and that's why I authorized the distribution. Now, when you talk -- MS. MAC DONALD: Well -- THE COURT: Don't interrupt me. When you talk about the 500,000, the major part of that was distributed by virtue of the Hennepin County order. So, Ms. Elliott's firm only got 139,000 plus an additional 9,000. So, that was already done. You know, in that earlier hearing you asked me to review what the Hennepin County judge had done, and I told you that we're on the same level, and I'm not an appellate court, I don't know if you ever appealed that ruling, but it seemed to me that you were given -- or your client was given ample opportunity to appear and object to that, and she failed to do so. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a 12 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 11 I'm also taking judicial notice with respect to the September 29th hearing, which you now believe this hearing is moot, is that your client was only recently arrested on an outstanding felony warrant, and, therefore, I don't believe that she was voluntarily appearing on the 29th, even if we would have had the hearing that you mentioned. So, I'm, as I say, I was somewhat surprised when you said you've now withdrawn your motion te withdraw as counsel. You're here with her and I'll take that as good faith on her part that you are in fact representing her, But those matters -- and I'm not going to ask that these various creditors repay this money because I think it was properly paid, and I think those claims were superior to any attorney's lien that you may have filed or recently supplemented. So, what we're dealing with today, Ms. MacDonald, is approximately $17,000 and whether or not that should be used to satisfy another claim against your client, thereby allowing her to receive a clear title to thie pontoon boat, wherever it might be, or if we use that for some other purpose, So, that's what we're dealing with here today. $0, give me your best shot on what we should do with the 16,000 -- or 17,000. The rest of the money is gone, distributed. Satisfactions of those various judgments have been negotiated by Ms. Elliott, probably at a cost to her client, but there's a benefit to him as well as to your client by virtue of her DAXOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 an 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12 settlement efforts. So, tell me what you want to do with the last $17,000, and then I'll hear from Me. Elliott, and we'll decide whether we pay off the pontoon, close the file and move on or we add to your $193,000 in attorney's liens. MS. MAC DONALD: Your Honor, I'd like my lien to be paid with the balance. THE COURT: Okay. As partial satisfaction, I assume? MS, MAC DONALD: Yes, as partial satisfaction. Again, all -- what has happened, and 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 be paid to Ms. Elliott. This case, the same thing seems to be occurring. she's never gotten a judgment for -- whether it's marital or nonmarital -- for any of the funds. I think I explained to you, Your Honor, that there was an order here that said that neither party could attach any -- anything that came from the GFP funds in violation of that order. Ms. Blliott connected with David Rucki's parents and did in fact attach a significant portion of those funds and then proceeded to move them here. Ms. Grazzini-Rucki did not do that. So, she, again, she's been bypassed. I think I explained or gave the court some new information about a tax form that was mailed to her, undated, DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a1 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 13 to her -- to the Ireland Place address where Mr. Rucki, at least, owns the home right now. ‘Then it was given to me. It purports to show that Ms. Grazzini-Rucki will have to pay taxes as if she has received 400 and some odd thousand dollars. And what happened is she was completely bypassed, has no opportunity to even use the funds to pay her taxes, and Ms, Elliott acted as receiver and decided to pay certain debts which are not -- she hasn't even shown the court these debts, It's all been her word of mouth. There's been no evidence of the debts, including Katz and Manka. They don't have a debt, Ms, Grazzini-Rucki tells me she already paid that, As for the pontoon, she doesn't have the pontoon. It's probably been taken by the banking authorities, probably nobody has to pay that debt, and it isn't anything she even has seen since ~~ (Discussion had off the record.) MS. MAC DONALD: he understands that Mr. Rucki has these items. Again, T just want to state, again for the record, that on September 7, 2012, by court order, both parents could not have contact with their children, by court order, and this was after their divorce, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki, owning her home 100 percent, was removed from her home and all of her possessions, all of her possessions. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 1a 12 43 14 as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 14 THE COURT: Again, that's 2012. I've only been asked to address the financial matters. ‘there have been numerous appeals to the court of appeals. those -- their decisions are part of the record and something I'm not terribly interested in because I'm not a court of appeals for the court of appeals. Again, you know, I don't recall the name of the judge from Hennepin County but -- MS. ELLIOTT: Siegesmund THE COURT: Even if I could remember it, I'd have a hard time pronouncing it, but the record in Hennepin County is very detailed, and that Hennepin County judge did yeoman's service to your client to give you a hearing a day after she'd already made her decision, And the Hennepin county order is very detailed and it's through every opportunity your client was given to appear and voice her objection in that litigation that went on for a number of years. So, again, I'm not dealing with the Hennepin County order. I'm dealing with approximately $17,000 that remains, and we need to decide whether or not -- and, Counsel, you know, for years I had Abraham lincoln's, supposedly, phrase about a lawyer's stock and trade is their time, and I always try to see lawyers get paid for their services, and your client has 38 pages of 721 entries on the MNCIS computer screen here, and you've been there for most of them, so I'm certainly not disagreeing that you may be owed DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 15 $193,000 for the services that you've provided to her. We're only dealing with 17,000 at this point, and I'm trying to clean up this matter, and I doubt that these folks will ever move on because the girls are evidently still missing. But for the small part I have to play in this matter, we're dealing with $17,000. MS. MAC DONALD: ‘Thank you. THE COURT: Ms. Elliott, why do you think we should satisfy this lien since nobody seems to know where the boat ig and maybe the bank does have it? MS. ELLIOTT: the bank doesn't have it. I've been in contact with them throughout the -- at least since midsummer when we were trying to negotiate these settlements. ‘The boat was never recovered; the pontoon was never recovered. The speed boat was recovered, and it was sold. So, what was paid to -- that one was to U.S. Bank. What was paid was just what they had left over after they sold it at auction. ‘The pontoon has never been recovered, It was awarded to Ms. Gragzini-Rucki as part of a divorce settlement, a stipulated property division. As part of that property division and stipulation and order, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki is to indemnify and hold Mr. Rucki harmless from that debt. His name is still on it. They started pursuing litigation against my client in order to DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT CouRT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a2 12 13 4 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 16 recover the $33,000. While it is true that an attorney's lien does attach upon when an attorney starts representing a client, divorces are different because the property in a divorce is the property of the marriage, it is not the property of either individual until the court orders that, that that is settled. Akers versus Akers, from 1951, set that forward, and so the divorce and the property of the divorce estate is not susceptible to the lien until the court awards that property to either particular party, So, at this point, that is still marital property. According to your order, Ms, Grazzini-Rucki has waived her claim that this is nonmarital property, so it's still part of the marital estate. We'xe asking that it be paid to Bank of the West to satisfy this, which is still a joint debt because their names are still on it. For the record, I would like to clarify a few things. Ms. MacDonald continues to misrepresent what's been going on in this litigation, in the GFP litigation, and even in her pleadings, she -- you know, and I can only imagine why she does this because most of her pleadings end up on the internet so that, you know, some of us involved in this case are threatened and -- yeah, we've been threatened. MS. MAC DONALD: Oh, MS. ELLIOTT: So, her ~- in her memorandum, third DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 paragraph, Judge, I will see somewhere: On July 15, 2015, all of the proceeds of the 552,983.01 were directly payable to Lisa Eliiott and wired -- had been wired into Ms. Elliott's bank account, That statement and the statements that she's waking here, which are exactly the same thing, imply that money went to me personally, so I have no doubt that's the impression she's trying to make so that groups such as Carver County Corruption and the like will be able to put this on their website and I'1] continue to get the bad treatment that. has been all over the internet, So, I want to clarify -- THE COURT: I might be on the Carver County Corruption website ahead of you, Ms. Elliott. MS. ELLIOTT: So, you know. I want to clarify for the record that that money was never made payable to me. It was never deposited into my bank account. It was deposited directly into the trust account, made payable to our trust account, In fact, it was wired from GFP's receivership into our trust account. I do have, and I would like actually to make this an exhibit, which are copies of the checks and the satisfactions, if that's okay, so I can have them on the record. THE COURT: Sure. Why don't you do this, I know you mentioned that you have releases or satisfactions from a number of these other people, why don't you just submit them all, give them to the clerks, and they can make copies and -- DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 11 12 13 14 as 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 18 do we still wake copies here? MS. BLLIOTT: TI have copies for Ms, MacDonald. ‘THE COURT: Okay. See that Ms. MacDonald gets her copies and we'll accept the rest of them as a combined Exhibit A or 1? THE CLERK: One MS. ELLIOTT: The only release that we don't have is from Bank of the West. Bank of the West, they did cash the check, They've acknowledged that it's been satisfied. It's just that they were -- deal with the credit company, so that credit company has been trying to figure out where they sent the actual release. THE COURT: You can send it in to us when you get it and -- MS, ELLIOT: It's been satisfied. THE COURT: -- give Ms. MacDonald a copy. MS. ELLIOTT: I have given Ms, MacDonald a copy. So, the only debt that's outstanding is the -- to U.S. Bank for the pontoon, I have a letter provided to the court that was attached as an exhibit to my motion papers that they are willing to accept the 16,972 to satisfy THE COURT: End of the pontoon season, and they couldn't get it for 12,000 so we can give Ms. MacDonald something ox -~ MS, ELLIOTT: If it -- if they want -- if it's DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 19 found, you can provide it, give it to Ms. MacDonald, she can sell it, get whatever she wants for it. It's never been in Mr. Rucki's possession THE COURT: Okay. Now, that's your statement on his behalf MS, ELLIOTT: The next clarification that I do want to make also is Ms, MacDonald, in her pleadings, complains about this new information, this tax form that suddenly appeared on her -- in her mailbox for the K-1 from GFP. Ms. MacDonald was at a hearing for the final distribution on October 12th. As part of that hearing, the receiver for GFP had filed a motion to -- for the final distribution, which is where that 9,000 came from, along with a request for court approval of the final GPP tax returns, On October 1 of this year, the receiver sent an email to everybody that was on the email thread, including Ms. MacDonald, including Debbie Sampson from her office, and two email addresses for Ms. Grazzini-Rucki, with copies of that tax return, Ms. MacDonald was at that hearing; she did not object to the tax return, The tax return included a K-21 for Ms, Grazzini-Rucki. Another party to the case, Ann Grazzini-Dunne, did object to some portion of the tax returns, those were corrected, and again, an amended tax return was sent to all parties, I think the email thread, to all parties, as well as filed on -- efiling for Hennepin DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a1 12 13 14 1s 16 ay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 20 County. We had the hearing: Ms, MacDonald raised no objections to the tax returns or the K-1. On October 27th, the final signed tax returns for GFP were again emailed to everybody, including Ms. MacDonald, Debbie Sampson, and two email addresses for Ms. Grazzini-Rucki. So, for her to vepresent to this court that suddenly this K-1 appeared in her mail in November ~~ MS, MAC DONALD: f have -- THE COURT: Has the Hennepin County receiver then been discharged? MS. ELLIOTT: Yes. That file is closed. It's been discharged. ‘hat final distribution was to all partners, and the last year it wasn't wired to my office or to my trust account, It was sent in with a check, and we deposited it into the trust account. MS. MAC DONALD: Your Honor, my reasoning -- there is -- yes, it did appear with an address that is David Rucki's home address, and my reasoning to alert you to that is that it indicates something that -- that she got money that she never had in her -- she never got a judgment for this money. That's the only reasoning. And, also, with respect -- I already showed you the orders, and I was trying to be very factual about it is that the receiver did say Lisa Elliott's bank account, that's what it said, it didn't say anything about a trust account, and DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 21 I'm just trying to demonstrate to the court that, yes, it never even reached Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. ‘There was no judgment for her as plaintiff. Tt just went -- directly bypassed her and went to Lisa Elliott's trust fund. THE COURT: TI do know that because that's the whole gist of the Hennepin County order is that was how it was to be distributed, and his parents were to be paid off the top and the balance was to go to Ms. Elliott. There's probably nothing I know less about than income tax, although that was one of my better grades in law school as I recall. You know, there undoubtedly are tax consequences for these folks. The distribution that was made out of the Hennepin County receivership for the various family members, not just your client, but the other one, undoubtedly have tax consequences. How you deal with them is going to be a tax issue between your client and you, if you continue to represent her in that venue, and the IRS. And if they're satisfied that she really received no benefit from this, so then they'll make some decision. But as I understand it right now, with xespect at least to the past due tax liabilities for these folks, those have been resolved, What her future liabilities may be, I have no idea, but it may be another battle that you have to fight on her behalf. All right . Well, you know, as I say, Ms. Blliott, I appreciate DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 qt 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 Page 22 your efforts in pulling this thing together and trying to get primarily your client, but also Ms. Grazzini-Rucki, off the books on these various creditors. I'll give it some thought I really would like to give Ms. MacDonald something for her efforts. I know, listening to your arguments, you felt that some of them were less than noble, but as adverse counsel, I guess most lawyers would feel that way, so -- but let me take a look at what you've submitted. You know, again, Ms. MacDonald, I just got your motion here. I don't have any new lien filed. ‘The last document I have here is your responsive motion, Ma. Elliott, that was filed on the 3rd, so -- but I'm taking -- you know, I'm assuming that $193,190.05 is the amount of the lien that you've recently filed, and I'll take it as that, and I'11 give it some thought as far as the balance of 16,000 and get an order out for you. Are you representing Ms. Grazzini-Rucki on her criminal matter? MS. MAC DONALD: Yes, I am, THE COURT: Okay. I didn't realize that they have no facilities for women in Dakota County; otherwise, Like I said, I would have made an earlier inquiry as to her whereabouts this morning. MS. MAC DONALD: I very much appreciate it. THE COURT: I appreciate you counsel being available this afternoon and waiting a bit. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 1a 12 13 a4 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 Page 23 MS. ELLIOTT: If I may make one more comment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. ELLIOPT: Since January 3rd of 2013, when Ms. MacDonald started representing Ms. Grazzini-Rucki, she has continually represented to this court, Judge Knudtson, to the federal court THE COURT: To Hennepin County MS. ELLIOTT: -- to Hennepin County, and in fact as early as last Monday in the criminal case, that she has been vepresenting Sandra pro bono, so the fact that she filed an attorney's lien before she made this representation, continues to use whatever benefit she's getting from claiming she's been representing her pro bono, I believe flies in the face of her now trying to seek these funds. MS. MAC DONALD: Your Honor, I've never -- I've been representing her at no pay. Because we had a civil rights action, I admit that isn't even part of this, the 193,000 is simply this action. T came in strictly on a constitutional challenge -- THE COURT: Sure MS, MAC DONALD: -- and ended up helping her along the way. When she came to me, she was homeless -- ‘THE COURT: Uh-huh, MS. MAC DONALD: -- and had already -- DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 24 THE COURT: I remember your arguments on her behalf at the first time we met as far as her employment or income status, and, you know, if you're continuing to represent her pro bono on the criminal matter, that's separate and distinct from what you've claimed here. MS, MAC DONALD: I have kept track of all of my time, and Ms, Grazzini's very much aware. She gets the bills. THE COURT: Like I say, you folks have got 751, and after today, it will be 752 entries on MNCIS, so it's undoubtedly a new world record, but I’m not sure of that. T will get an order out to you shortly When is her next court appearance on the criminal action. MS. MAC DONALD: I believe it's -- I'm not sure exactly. THE COURT: But she's demanded her right to a speedy trial, I assume -- MS, MAC DONALD: Right, right. THE COURT; -- based upon her inability to make the bail? MS. MAC DONALD: And part of my motion, too, is the child support piece as well, so you can take that under advisement. THE COURT: Well, you know, if she -- well, I think DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 1a 12 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 I told you that last time, she has to file something with the magistrate and ask that that be put on the calendar for reduction of child support. MS. MAC DONALD: That's not the way -- THE COURT: Mr. Donehower put in his correspondence to the court that if there's going to be something done on that, he needs to be put on notice so he could appear. MS. MAC DONALD: Right THE COURT: I'm not doing anything on that because that's what they have child support magistrates for, and I've told Judge Conkel that given the limited amount of senior judge time that we now have available because of the budget, this is it for me. I'm going to finish this part of it and anything new, including a modification of child support, needs to be before another judge or the child support magistrate. MS. ELLIOTT: Can I speak? MS. MAC DONALD: Could I have an order to that effect because the motion -- THE COURT: Sure. I'11 include that. MS, MAC DONALD: -- the motion, what I'd like to do is the motion that I brought before you, which is very much promulgated by the law, I had asked that the xeservation take place, by law, which would have been the month following the motion. $0, if we are going to move it to the magistrate, DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 ey 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 26 I'd just like an order saying the magistrate will -- so I don't have to redo the papers, It doesn't make any sense THE COURT: Ms, Elliott. MS. ELLIOTT: So, let's clarify that. In her -- in this motion Ms. MacDonald filed on November 11th, she's asking for a ruling on petitioner's child support motion and motion to unseal the court transeript dated dune 29, 2015. What I'm assuming she's asking is for you to reserve the determination on her motion to reduce child support back to June of 2015 because she, in this motion paper, which she's claiming, is you didn't address that in your August 3ist -- THE COURT: Didn't I deny the request -- MS. ELLIOTT: You did, you denied both. You denied it. The motions of petitioner are in all respects denied, so you did address these. So, if she wants to bring a new child support motion, that's fine, but it's not going to revert back to June or May. IB COURT: Revert back is redundant. We'll just say revert. MS. ELLIOTT: It's late in the afternoon. THE COURT: I know it is. 1'11 look at that, Counsel, and look at my earlier order in that regard, but as I say, my thought at the time was that there is a mechanism that is quick, it's certain, and that usually involves a child support magistrate. And, again, because Mr. Donehower DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 was here at the first hearing and I thought I denied that, then he wasn't here at this one because he didn't think we were going to deal with any child support issues, so. T'21 get it out to you. Thank you, Thank you. DAKOTA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT10 qa 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 28 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) Holly Nordahl, do certify that I am an official court reporter in and for the County of Ramsey, Second Judicial District, State of Minnesota, and that I reported the foregoing proceedings in this matter, and that the transcript contained on the foregoing 27 pages is a true and correct transcript of the shorthand notes taken by me at the said time and place herein mentioned DATED: July 15, 2016 /s/ HOLLY NORDAHL, RPR, CRR Official Court Reporter 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Chambers 1430 St, Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: (651) 266-9182 RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT CouRT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT