Playback speed
×
Share post
Share post at current time
0:00
/
0:00
Transcript
2

Michael Volpe Investigates Special Report: an interview with Michelle MacDonald

Michelle is fighting to make it easier for all Minnesotans, she tells me, to be able to get on the ballot. Does she deserve to run for judge: you decide.
2
Michelle MacDonald from her campaign’s website

Michelle MacDonald tells me that her fight is to make it easier for people to run for judge, but there is a concerted effort to keep her off the ballot in November.

Michelle MacDonald filed to run for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice in July 2024, but that application was rejected by the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office because she does not have an active law license.

Her license is indefinitely suspended.

It all has to do with one “viral” case which continues to trail her every move: the child custody case of David Rucki and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki (SGR), where she represented SGR.

Michael Volpe Investigates is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The first time her law license was suspended was in 2018. This stemmed from an incident in 2013, five years prior. In September 2013, she was conducting a custody trial, when, during a break, sheriff’s deputies detained her. locked her into a wheelchair and forced her to continue in that state. She continued the trial with no pen, paper, or even client present. Check out 1:10:00 of the video below for that moment.

The judge who presided was David Knutson.

Knutson awarded David Rucki sole custody and 100% of the millions in assets after this sham trial, and he filed a complaint against Michelle’s license, claiming she didn’t zealously represent her client while strapped to this wheelchair.

It took until 2018 for her law license to be suspended for 60 days.

Also in 2018, she ran for Minnesota Supreme Court. She had previously run in 2014, losing to David Lillehaug 53-47%. She ran in 2018 after her license was reinstated.

During that race, she did an interview with a local radio station.

In this interview, she recounted the hearing where she was strapped to a wheelchair and stated that both parent’s civil rights were violated and mentioned that David Knutson presided over the case.

Share

I asked Michelle what she meant by both parent’s civil rights being violated. She referred to a court order from September 7, 2012, where her client, SGR, was told to vacate her home on three hours’ notice, and both parents were forbidden from having any contact with their five children. If they did, they would be jailed, according to Knutson’s order. David’s sister, Tami Love, was given temporary custody.

Contents of that interview led to another bar complaint, this one for impugning the integrity of a judge, Knutson.

The bar disciplinary hearing did not occur until 2020. It was an eight-hour marathon session, in which two other complaints were heard against Michelle’s license. There was a dispute over $50 and a complaint that a lawsuit she filed was frivolous.

Retired Judge Anne McKinsey presided. She dismissed the other charges- the payment dispute and the allegedly frivolous lawsuit- but she did find that Michelle had impugned the integrity of Judge Knutson- who I believe is as corrupt as the day is long.

By this decision, Judge McKinsey effectively makes it impossible for anyone to run a serious campaign challenging any judge, because any criticism of said judge or the judiciary can be viewed as impugning that judge or the system.

That seems like election interference.

Michelle was indefinitely suspended in 2021, and the Minnesota Supreme Court, the same court she had run for several times, upheld the suspension in 2023.

That seems like a conflict.

In Minnesota to run for judge you need an active law license, or do you?

Michelle doesn’t think so. The Minnesota Constitution states you need to be “learned in the law.”

Over time, this has come to includes an active law license, but does it?

She told me that a case from 1940 states the opposite: Boedigheimer Vs Welter. In that case, Michelle told me that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the opposite: learned in the law does not mean having an active law license.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office is representing the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office against Michelle. She is suing to get on the ballot. There will be a hearing on Tuesday August 27, 2024, to determine if Michelle is to be placed on the ballot.

It is supposed to be in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court, but they have all recused themselves.

The Minnesota AG’s Office did not provide comment, but they did send me their reply brief. The brief states that learned in the law is having an active law license. They cite their own cases to say this is the precedent. In particular, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office cites Daly.

It’s quite a pickle. The Minnesota bar has suspended her license for marginal infractions. The Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed the suspension, even though she was bound to run against them. Now, she is being kept off the ballot by an interpretation of the law which makes it harder for someone to run for judge than for President.

At the same time, David Lillehaug filed a complaint against her law license, which he says doesn’t exist. He claims that she committed fraud when she filed her application for candidacy.

Lillehaug both argues that Michelle doesn’t have a law license but also argues that she did not transcribe properly the law license she doesn’t have.

I reached out to Lillehaug by email, but he did not respond.

His complaint triggered another complaint against the law license that everyone is claiming she doesn’t have.

Get more from Michael Volpe in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android

Discussion about this podcast

Michael Volpe Investigates
Michael Volpe Investigates
I give voice to the voiceless with true original reporting on topics the rest of the media is too afraid or lazy to cover.