Electronically Served 19AV-CV-17-1950
7/26/2018 12:57 PM
Dakota County, MN

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA - FIRST IUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

David Rucki. Samantha Ruck].

And o/b/o minor children,
Court File No. 7-1950
Pentloners,
ORDER
v. AND
MEMORANDUM
Deirdre Elise Evavold,
Respondent

 

The above?entitled matter came before the undersigned on May 16. 2018, pursuant
to the motion of the Respondent objecting to, and seeking vacation of, the Harassment
Restraining Order issued by the Honorable Karen Asphaug on July 28, 2017.

Attorneyr Paul Godfread appeared on behalf and with the Respondent; Attorney Lisa
Elliott appeared with David Rucki on behalf of both Petitioners.

Based upon all the ?les records and proceedings herein, as well as additional
information from Court File 19HA-CR-15-4227, State of Minnesota vs. Deirdre Elise
Evavold, and the companion cases;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1] That the motion of the Respondent objecting to, and seeking vacation of, the

above?referenced restraining order is DENIED.

2) That said restraining order issued by the Honorable Karen Asphaug is

AFFIRMED.
3) That the attached memorandum is incorporated by reference.
Dated: July 26, 2018 Handing 
ourt

JUL 2-6 2018 59" I'ludge of District

 

19AV-CV-17-1950

MEMORANDUM

To understand the factual scenario leading up to the petition of the Rucki family
seeking a harassment restraining order, one need only look to the earlier criminal actions of
the Respondent to understand the fear, frustrations and threats that members of the family
feel as a result of the actions of Respondent.

As noted in the above-referenced criminal ?le, on April 19, 2016, the Respondent was
convicted of 6 felonies relating to her actions in concealing David Rucki?s children and
depriving him of his parental rights for several years. One of the conditions of Respondent's
probation on these felonies was that she have no contact with the children and she was
prohibited from referring to the children on social media.

As noted in the numerous supporting documents ?led with the Petition, the
Respondent, through her blog, Red Herring Alert, has violated the terms of her probation by
posting information, photos and information about the Rucki family. These postings include
many references about the Petitioner, David Rucki, and his children.

There is convincing evidence in the supporting documents that Respondent has
effective control over the postings on the Red Herring Alert blog and therefore provide ample
support for the issuance of the order.

Based upon the above, the Respondent?s actions constitute harassment as de?ned in
Minn. Stat. section 609.748, subd. 1, and Judge Aspbaug?s restraining order was appropriate.

On July 28, 2017, Judge Asphaug granted the Petitioners? request and issued an ex
ports restraining order. In that order, she found that the Respondent had made threats to
the Petitioner and that the harassment has had or is intended to have a substantial adverse
effect on the safety, security or privacy of the Petitioner. She included in this restraining
order the Petitioner?s other minor children. As apart of that restraining order, she
prohibited the Respondent from naming any member of the Rucki family in any blog posting,
social media posting or internet posting.

That restraining order was personally served on the Respondent on july 31, 2017.

On August 17, 2017, Petitioner ?led an Af?davit and Order to Show Cause for
Contempt of the Harassment Restraining Order based upon allegations that Respondent had
continued to post things on social media about the family contrary to the temporary
restraining order. Petitioner provided additional documentation that the postings
continued.

The undersigned was assigned to here that motion on August 24, 2017.
On August 24, 2017, the Petitioner appeared together with his attorney, Lisa Elliott.

The Respondent appeared pro se. At that time, Respondent ?led with the Court and served
on Petitioner her Notice of Objection and Motion to vacate the restraining order.

19AV-CV-17-1950

Because this was the ?rst notice that Petitioner had of Respondent's request, the
Court continued the motion to give both parties additional time to prepare.

The Court left in place, however, Judge Asphaug?s order and cautioned the
Respondent that it was still in full force and effect until July 27, 2019.

On December 10, 2017, Respondent renewed her .motion that the order be dismissed and
the matter was set on for hearing on December 13, 2017.

At the time of the December 13, 2017 hearing, Petitioner ?led an emergency motion
seeking an order requiring the Respondent to remove from-a December 12, 2107 posting on
the Red Herrin Alert the Petitioner's home address. The Court heard from both parties and
on January 2, 2018, issued an order granting Petitioner's motion which, in part, required the
Respondent to remove the offensive postings. At that time, the Court was also aware that
the Respondent was facing criminal charges arising out of the violation of Judge Asphaug?s
order. Once again, the Respondent was informed that additional criminal charges could be
forthcoming if she continued to violate the July 2-8, 2017 order or any subsequent orders
dealng the same prohibitions. - .

On February 27, 2018, the Respondent was brought before the Honorable Kathleen
Gearin for a contempt hearing. Judge Gearin found the Respondent in constructive civil
contempt of the restraining orders dated July 28, 2017 and January 2, 2018 and sentenced
Respondent to 30 days in jail. in her March 1, 2018 order, Judge Gearin wrote extensive
?ndings and issued an order with speci?c directions to the Respondent as to how to purge
herself of the contempt. Respondent was arrested on March 1811'. Based upon efforts made
by the Respondent?s husband and staff from Ms. Elliott?s office, Respondent was reieased
from custody on March 21, 2018 with the balance of the jail time stayed pending ?nal and
complete removal all items noted in her March 1sit order.

Respondent, through her attorney raises constitutional issues relating to the First
Amendment and Prior restraint. The Court has considered these and finds no merit to these.

In the 34+ years the undersigned has served as a District or Senior Judge, never have
i seen a case that represents harassment most evil. The Respondent?s actions have been
intended to terrify, threaten and invade the privacy of the Petitioner and his minor children.

The criminal case which is pending receipt of this order should proceed without
delay. in addition, any pending probation violations on the underlying felony convictions

should proceed.
JFL

?f