Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 74

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

2 COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 State of Minnesota, SENTENCING HEARING

5 Plaintiff,

6 vs. Court File No. 19HA-CR-15-4229

7 Douglas Dahlen,

8 Defendant.

9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 State of Minnesota, SENTENCING HEARING

11 Plaintiff,

12 vs.

13 Gina Dahlen, Court File No. 19HA-CR-15-4230

14 Defendant.

15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16

17 The above-entitled matters came duly on for hearing

18 before the Honorable KAREN ASPHAUG, one of the judges of the

19 above-named Court, on the 2nd day of May, 2017, at the Dakota

20 County Judicial Center, City of Hastings, County of Dakota, State

21 of Minnesota.

22

23 * * *

24

25
2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2 * * *

3 KATHRYN M. KEENA, Assistant Dakota County Attorney,

4 appeared as counsel for and on behalf of the plaintiff in both

5 cases.

6 TRAVIS M. KEIL, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel

7 with and on behalf of DEFENDANT DOUGLAS DAHLEN.

8 KYLE D. WHITE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel with

9 and on behalf of DEFENDANT GINA DAHLEN.

10

11 EXHIBITS

12 NUMBER MARKED OFFERED RECEIVED

13 1- Statewide Supervision Portal 3 7 8


printout, Douglas Dahlen
14
2- Statewide Supervision Portal 3 7 8
15 printout, Gina Dahlen

16 3- 2017 property tax statement 3 11 --

17 4- Order for Mediation 3 11 --

18 5- Scheduling Order 3 11 --

19 6- February 17, 2017, letter 3 11 12

20 7- Real estate printout 3 11 12

21 8- July 14, 2016, court order 42 43 43

22

23

24

25
3

1 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were duly had

2 of record:)

3 (Exhibits No. 1-7 marked for identification.)

4 THE COURT: Let's call the matter of Gina and Doug

5 Dahlen, files HA-CR-15-4230 in the case of Ms. Dahlen, and

6 HA-CR-15-4229 in the case of Mr. Dahlen.

7 Counsel, please note your appearances.

8 MS. KEENA: Kathy Keena on behalf of the State.

9 MR. KEIL: Good morning, Your Honor. Travis Keil,

10 K-E-I-L, on behalf of Mr. Dahlen, who is present to my right.

11 MR. WHITE: Kyle White for Gina Dahlen.

12 THE COURT: All right. Have a seat, folks.

13 Counsel, with your permission, it makes sense to me

14 to proceed with a joint sentencing hearing --

15 MS. KEENA: I agree, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: -- in this case rather than repeating.

17 I think much of what will be said applies in equal measure to

18 both Mr. and Ms. Dahlen.

19 So do you have any objection to a joint hearing --

20 MR. KEIL: No, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: -- Mr. Keil?

22 MR. KEIL: We agree with that.

23 THE COURT: Mr. White?

24 MR. WHITE: No, Your Honor. No objection.

25 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Keena?


4

1 MS. KEENA: (Nodding.)

2 THE COURT: The record should reflect -- well, for

3 everyone in the courtroom -- that Mr. and Ms. Dahlen pled

4 guilty to Count V of the complaints in their respective

5 cases, a charge of deprivation of custodial or parental

6 rights, a felony offense. A presentence investigation was

7 ordered. At the time of the plea, the State -- or at the

8 time of the plea, both Mr. and Ms. Dahlen stated their

9 intention to pursue a durational departure from the Minnesota

10 Sentencing Guidelines -- specifically, a non-felony

11 disposition -- and put the Court and the defense -- and the

12 State on notice that gross misdemeanor dispositions would be

13 requested at the time of sentencing. The State opposes this,

14 and at the time of the plea, indicated that the State would

15 be requesting a felony disposition at the time of sentencing.

16 A presentence investigation was conducted. I have

17 received copies of PSI reports on both Mr. and Ms. Dahlen. I

18 have received the defense motions for a departure from the

19 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, together with accompanying

20 briefs. I have received the State's opposition brief. And I

21 have received numerous letters in support of Mr. and

22 Ms. Dahlen.

23 And Ms. Keena, I want to make sure -- I'm not sure

24 if you have received these various letters? Include --

25 frankly, some of the letters are unintelligible because


5

1 they're handwritten, and for some reason, they did not scan

2 well. And -- and so there's one letter that I literally

3 cannot make out (indicating) a single thing that was written,

4 including the signature of the letter writer. There are

5 actually three handwritten letters that are very difficult to

6 decipher, but I assume that they are written in support of

7 Mr. and Ms. Dahlen.

8 There is also a letter -- two letters, one from

9 each of the foster parents that the girls were placed with

10 immediately upon their recovery. And I have letters from

11 those foster parents, and I'm not sure, Counsel, if you

12 received copies of those letters or not.

13 MR. WHITE: No, we have not, Your Honor.

14 MR. KEIL: No.

15 MS. KEENA: Nor has the State.

16 THE COURT: Okay. I can provide you -- would you

17 like to see those letters before we proceed?

18 MR. KEIL: Yes, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Okay. Maybe -- these are the Norwig --

20 I have them right here. Can we copy -- we could run out and

21 make copies of these letters so you can review them, and we

22 can take a five-minute recess so you can read them.

23 MR. KEIL: That's fine.

24 THE COURT: But I'm going to retain -- I'll allow

25 you to read them, but you've got to give them back. I'm not
6

1 going to let you walk out of here with copies of these

2 letters. All right?

3 MR. KEIL: Sounds good.

4 (Off-the-record discussion.)

5 THE COURT: And I don't know, Counsel, if you have

6 copies -- I can show you what I have that is undecipherable,

7 and if you have better copies of any (indicating) of these,

8 you can provide them to me here today. (Handing.)

9 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Thank you.

11 (Off-the-record discussion.)

12 THE COURT: Let's take a short recess just so

13 counsel has the opportunity to review the various letters,

14 and if you can provide me with legible copies --

15 MR. WHITE: I think I have four legible copies of

16 letters that were not legible.

17 THE COURT: Okay. And I assume Ms. Keena needs

18 copies of those as well.

19 MS. KEENA: Mine were legible.

20 THE COURT: Yours were legible?

21 MS. KEENA: At least the ones I received.

22 MR. WHITE: May I provide them?

23 THE COURT: Yes, please.

24 MR. WHITE: (Handing.)

25 (Off-the-record discussion.)
7

1 THE COURT: Is the State ready to proceed?

2 MS. KEENA: Yes, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, the State did receive both

5 the PSI for Doug Dahlen and Gina Dahlen, and in reviewing

6 both PSIs, I believe there's one correction that's necessary.

7 And at this -- pertaining to the recommendations, it's

8 indicated that the Dahlens serve one day in jail, which the

9 State disagrees with.

10 And at this time, the State would like to submit

11 Exhibits 1 and 2, which are printouts from the Statewide

12 Supervision Portal indicating that both the Dahlens on the

13 day of their first appearance on November -- or excuse me --

14 January 11th, 2016, were fingerprinted prior to making their

15 first appearance. Exhibit 1 pertains to Doug Dahlen, and

16 this shows that he was fingerprinted starting at 8:36 a.m.

17 and completed at 8:42 (indicating), and that immediately

18 thereafter, Gina Dahlen, according to Exhibit 2, her

19 fingerprinting started at 8:43 and was completed at 8:48.

20 And the State does not believe that the defendants should be

21 given credit for that as jail time.

22 THE COURT: All right. Any objection to Exhibit 1?

23 MR. KEIL: No, Your Honor.

24 MR. WHITE: No, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: And Exhibit -- to Exhibit 2, any


8

1 objection to Exhibit 2?

2 MR. WHITE: No, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: All right. Exhibits 1 and 2 are

4 received for purposes of this hearing.

5 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, I guess the State would

6 inquire on how you would like us to proceed with the

7 sentencing hearing. Both Tammy Love and David Rucki have

8 victim impact statements that they would like to present to

9 the Court. I have some other arguments regarding the

10 recommendations that have been made and then have argument in

11 response to their motion for departure. So I'm prepared

12 right now. I'd like to maybe argue about the recommendations

13 themselves.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 MS. KEENA: And then have the opportunity to

16 respond to their motion?

17 THE COURT: Certainly.

18 MS. KEENA: Okay. Your Honor, the State has

19 reviewed the recommendations for both defendants, which

20 mirror one another, and disagrees with two of the

21 recommendations, the first being the amount of jail time and

22 community work service. The recommendations of the PSI

23 writer are that the defendants serve one day in jail, be

24 given credit for one day served; that they complete 100 hours

25 of community work service within one year and then another


9

1 hundred hours within two years. And also recommends that

2 they pay a minimal fine.

3 As to the jail time, Your Honor, based on the

4 seriousness of this offense, I don't think community work

5 service is the appropriate sentence in this case and that the

6 Dahlens should be required to serve jail time. And it's my

7 belief in reviewing the PSIs and the comments made by both

8 the defendants that the PS writer relied heavily on the fact

9 that the defendants run White Horse Ranch on which supposedly

10 there are horses present. What they failed to indicate to

11 the PSI writer is that the White Horse Ranch is currently for

12 sale. And at this time, I'd like to offer a series of

13 exhibits for the record to support that.

14 Your Honor, the reason why the residence is for

15 sale relates to the divorce of Doug Dahlen from his ex-wife,

16 Pamela Dahlen. So for Exhibit 3, I have a printout of the

17 property -- 2017 property tax statement of the property that

18 shows ownership currently in Douglas and Pamela Dahlen.

19 As Exhibit 4, I have an order for mediation from

20 Grant County Court File No. 26-FA-08-138, which is an order

21 for mediation relating to the property.

22 And I also have a scheduling -- and that was dated

23 in October -- excuse me -- it was --

24 THE COURT: I'm going to -- you're offering this

25 because you believe the PSI writer relies heavily on the


10

1 White Horse Ranch, and --

2 MS. KEENA: Yeah, there's -- Your Honor, there's

3 statements by the defendants made about how they're hoping

4 that they're going to be able to continue the business of the

5 White Horse Ranch, so the State just wants to put these on

6 the record to refute that as even being a possibility and a

7 reason why they would need community work service instead of

8 serving jail time.

9 THE COURT: But -- maybe I'm missing it, and I --

10 I'd like you to draw --

11 MS. KEENA: Sure.

12 THE COURT: -- my attention -- I note that there

13 are statements about the ranch and --

14 MS. KEENA: If you look at --

15 THE COURT: -- on employment and employment, but

16 where --

17 MS. KEENA: If you look on page 6 of Gina Dahlen's

18 PSI where the PSI writer is indicating "areas of strength"?

19 And that's where it is noted about hoping to continue their

20 work.

21 THE COURT: Right.

22 MS. KEENA: And also with -- on page 7 of

23 Mr. Dahlen's. "Areas of strength," again, it's the ranch

24 that is mentioned. So I just wish to make these part of the

25 record to establish that keeping the ranch going is -- as it


11

1 currently is is not going to happen.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MS. KEENA: So let's see. We went through

4 Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4. We went through -- Exhibit 5 is a

5 scheduling order that indicates that the ranch is going to be

6 sold. Exhibit 6 is a letter dated February 27th, 2017, in

7 which Mr. Dahlen's attorney writes the Court indicating that

8 the ranch has been -- or the house has been placed on the

9 market. And Exhibit 7 is a printout from a real estate

10 company, a brochure for the property that's dated today, that

11 does show the fact -- show the property is, in fact, for

12 sale.

13 So the State would offer those exhibits.

14 THE COURT: Have you shown them to counsel?

15 MS. KEENA: I just provided them copies, Your

16 Honor.

17 THE COURT: All right.

18 Any objection, Mr. Keil?

19 MR. KEIL: Your Honor, I would object. I guess I'm

20 failing to connect the dots here. The --

21 THE COURT: Can I see --

22 MS. KEENA: (Handing.)

23 MR. KEIL: The PSI is not focused on the White

24 Horse Ranch. It is focused on the Dahlens.

25 THE COURT: What's your objection -- what's the


12

1 legal basis for your objection?

2 MR. KEIL: The relevance.

3 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. White.

4 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I would object as well. As

5 I understand it from Mr. Dahlen and Mrs. Dahlen, that they

6 have been ordered to put the ranch up for sale for purposes

7 of a family court matter that's still pending, and that once

8 there is a buyer, Mr. Dahlen would have the opportunity to

9 buy the ranch. But they would be -- what they're attempting

10 to do is set the fee, set the price of the ranch, and that --

11 they don't intend to lose the ranch, they don't expect to

12 lose the ranch. It's just a matter of a family court

13 proceeding that, in deference to Ms. Keena, I believe she

14 does not have the full details of what's happening in that

15 particular family law matter.

16 THE COURT: All right. I find that Exhibits 3, 4,

17 and 5 are not relevant to this proceeding. They are not

18 received. However, they have been offered, and we will

19 retain copies of them for purposes of future review should it

20 become necessary. Exhibit 6, the letter stating that the

21 property has been listed, and Exhibit 7, the MLS listing,

22 is -- both are received. Thank you.

23 Ms. Keena, go ahead.

24 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, as I indicated, the

25 community work service is not appropriate in this case, and


13

1 despite what defense counsel just indicated about the divorce

2 proceeding, what has always been portrayed to me is that

3 these folks can't do jail time because somebody needs to take

4 care of the horses. Well, I question -- and regardless of

5 what Mr. White says, those exhibits, the ones that the Court

6 didn't receive, completely indicate that this property is on

7 the market for a reason.

8 THE COURT: Let me -- let me inform the State and

9 the defense that any argument that a person -- we send

10 parents to jail, parents who are charged with the

11 responsibility of taking care of children. We send parents

12 to prison in our society, and the argument that we cannot do

13 jail -- if that argument is made, that we cannot do -- serve

14 time in jail because we have animals will not be persuasive,

15 so let's move on.

16 MS. KEENA: All right. Thank you.

17 Your Honor, in this case, the Court's well aware of

18 all the facts of this case, so I'm not going to be belabor

19 those. But to think that 200 hours of community work

20 service, being out to do it at their leisure, in any way,

21 shape, or form is sufficient punishment for what these two

22 people did is ridiculous. Quite frankly, the State is

23 appalled at these recommendations, especially considering

24 what the co-defendants got. And their actions are no less

25 onerous than the co-defendants in this case. And you look at


14

1 DeDe Evavold, who had these girls or with these -- were with

2 these girls for two days. These folks kept them for two and

3 a half years, putting this family, putting this father

4 through much anguish.

5 And I'm probably just going to get into my

6 arguments on the departure. This is -- this is not a case

7 that warrants a downward durational departure, as being

8 requested. As the State outlined in its memorandum in

9 opposition, if anything, this is more onerous when compared

10 to other cases that the appellate courts have reviewed. This

11 was not -- the statute they were charged under was enacted to

12 prevent or to deal with parental kidnapping. That isn't what

13 we have in this case. We have people who had absolutely no

14 legal right whatsoever to retain children who are not their

15 own for two and a half years. And I can't fathom, I can't

16 fathom what rational person thinks it's okay? Regardless of

17 what these children are telling you, who thinks that's okay?

18 942 days they kept these girls, and they try to rationalize

19 it with, "Well, you know, they were telling us, you know,

20 these terrible things about their father, and they were so

21 fearful of their father." They were the adults. At what

22 point were they going to start questioning? Especially when

23 they admittedly knew that these girls had been reported

24 missing, and they knew they were missing for over a year and

25 a half because they saw the pictures on the Coborn's bag.


15

1 Yet they did nothing. They kept the girls.

2 They also rationalize it -- well, just before I get

3 to that point, rationalizing that they were fearful of their

4 father -- which I found very interesting coming from Doug

5 Dahlen, who according to his PSI, had been falsely accused of

6 abusing his ex-wife. So here's a man who's been through

7 that, and he doesn't even question. He's, like, "Well, gee,

8 I went through that. Maybe -- maybe they're not telling the

9 truth." And they weren't telling the truth; they'd been

10 brainwashed by their mother.

11 They also rationalize or attempt to rationalize,

12 "Well, if we hadn't kept them, they were going to run away.

13 They were going to run away, and they may have been

14 sex-trafficked." Well, what do you think the father was

15 thinking, the father and their siblings? For two and a half

16 years, he has no idea where these girls are. That's what

17 their fear is: They're being sex-trafficked; they're

18 runaways; or worse yet, they're dead. He doesn't know, and

19 he's the victim in this case, so as much as they want to say

20 they were doing what they thought were the right thing for

21 the girls, who they harmed, who the victim is is David Rucki.

22 It was not their right or their job to decide what

23 was in the best interest of these girls. That decision was

24 made long before by a District Court judge who was very

25 familiar with this case, who had professionals making


16

1 recommendations on what should happen with the custody of

2 those children. Yet they took it upon themselves to thumb

3 their nose at the court system and thwart the efforts that

4 had been made up to that point to get the children reunified

5 with the father. To think under all the facts and

6 circumstances of this case that a gross misdemeanor would be

7 appropriate with only community work service is unfathomable

8 to me.

9 It's for that reason the State is requesting that

10 the Court deny the motion for a departure and is further

11 requesting that as to the recommendations that are being

12 made, the State would request that the Dahlens each be

13 required to serve 180 days in jail, which is what Ms. Evavold

14 received. And that as a fine, they be required to pay the

15 same fine, $944, one dollar for each day the girls were gone,

16 plus the necessary surcharge.

17 That's all the State has for argument, Your Honor.

18 I would intend on presenting -- do you want to hear the

19 victim impact statements now?

20 THE COURT: Yes. Yes, I'd like to invite the

21 victim impact statements at this time. Do you wish to call

22 Ms. Love or do you wish to call Mr. Rucki first?

23 MS. KEENA: Ms. Love was going to -- and Your

24 Honor, I haven't read these. They both provided me copies of

25 their impact statements prior to coming into court. There


17

1 are copies for you.

2 THE COURT: Thank you.

3 MS. KEENA: Where would you like -- by counsel

4 table or --

5 THE COURT: Why don't we move the podium over.

6 That might --

7 MS. LOVE: Thank you.

8 THE COURT: -- give you something to lean on.

9 MS. LOVE: I appreciate that.

10 THE COURT: Ms. Love, good morning.

11 MS. LOVE: Good morning.

12 THE COURT: Thank you for being here today.

13 MS. LOVE: Thank you for having me.

14 THE COURT: I have your -- a copy of your impact

15 statement. Thank you for providing me with a copy of that.

16 I am going to ask that when you read -- sometimes

17 when we get nervous, we start reading faster and faster. I

18 want to make sure I hear every word; we want to make sure we

19 get an accurate record.

20 MS. LOVE: Yep.

21 THE COURT: But I will provide a copy to our

22 reporter to supplement the record. Please go ahead.

23 MS. LOVE: Thank you.

24 Good morning, Your Honor. Thank you for the

25 opportunity to speak to you today.


18

1 My name is Tammy love. You and most of the people

2 in this courtroom today know me as Dave Rucki's sister. I

3 would like to speak to you today not only as Dave's sister

4 but as a mother, a daughter, a grandmother, and an aunt. I

5 would like to speak to you as a legal guardian of the Rucki

6 children and as a member of the larger Rucki family.

7 Throughout this entire ordeal, I have played a number of

8 roles, and I would like to take this opportunity to express

9 how each of these has affected -- been affected by the crimes

10 of Doug and Gina Dahlen.

11 It is interesting -- as I take a step back, I

12 thought about how this whole thing started for me. I realize

13 that it started for me the same way it did for Doug and Gina

14 Dahlen, with a phone call. The difference in the way that we

15 chose to act on those phone calls is what brings us here

16 today, me standing before you speaking, while they await a

17 sentence.

18 My phone call came long before theirs. I answered

19 my phone as a sister. I received a phone call because my

20 family needed my help. I will never regret the decision I

21 made to help that day and for the next six years. As a

22 sister and as a member of the Rucki family, I stepped up to

23 help my brother, who was in crisis. From that moment on, I

24 did everything I could to help. I was asked by my family and

25 the court to provide a stable environment for my nieces and


19

1 nephews while David and Sandra worked through their divorce

2 custody case. Without hesitation, I agreed. I moved from my

3 home in Eden Prairie to live in Lakeville, into Dave's home.

4 My daily commute to work turned out from ten minutes to over

5 an hour. I uprooted my entire life to help my brother and

6 his family. For a time I lived there it was -- it was just

7 Nico. Later, when Sandra's sister asked that the children be

8 taken from her home, I was asked to take on the other

9 children, and again, without hesitation, I agreed. I was

10 made the legal guardian of my brother's children.

11 On April 19th, 2013, two of those children were

12 taken from me. As a mother, aunt, legal guardian, and

13 sister, I was devastated. I was the first person to discover

14 they were gone, the first person to contact the police, the

15 attorney, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited

16 Children. I was the contact point for the search for the

17 girls. I was their guardian. They were taken from me.

18 My brother had lost his two children. He was

19 devastated. For 944 days, every single time my phone rang,

20 it was my -- and it was my brother on the Caller ID, I would

21 answer. It did not matter to me what time of day it was or

22 what I was doing. I would do what he needed. Nothing was

23 more important. It became critical to me to be able to

24 immediately ease any stress or discomfort that Dave was

25 going -- was having. I did not want him to have to wait. As


20

1 a mother, I understood the pain he was going through. As

2 Samantha and Gianna's aunt, I was going through the pain

3 myself. As a daughter, I was navigating the pain my parents

4 were experiencing for their own child and their

5 grandchildren. Our family was affected at every level by

6 this incredible experience.

7 During those 944 days, I became a grandmother

8 myself. I suddenly felt a deep understanding of what my

9 parents were going through. I again felt motivated to help

10 lessen their pain. Someone asked me the other day why I did

11 all this. My answer was simple: Because it's family. This

12 is what my family -- this is what family does.

13 I was not the only person to receive a phone call

14 to ask for their help in this case. Doug and Gina Dahlen

15 also received a phone call. What they did in the wake of

16 their phone call forever changed the course of my nieces'

17 lives. Doug and Gina Dahlen held my nieces at their home for

18 942 days. Samantha and Gianna were 13 and 14 years old when

19 they arrived at the White Horse Ranch. For 942 days, they

20 did not receive schooling, medical care, or dental care. At

21 very crucial times in the lives of young teenage girls, they

22 were deprived of the opportunity to come into their own.

23 They missed out on so many things at school, in the

24 community, and with their own family. Samantha and Gianna

25 were not allowed to act as normal teenagers because they were


21

1 being forced to hide. They could not seek medical care

2 because they would have been found. Not only could they not

3 go to the doctor for an emergency, they did not receive any

4 routine care. As such young teenage girls going through so

5 many changes of their bodies, they needed to be cared for and

6 watched over. They did not receive that.

7 When I think about myself and my experience during

8 the 944 days Samantha and Gianna were gone, for most vivid

9 memories -- excuse me -- were gone, my most vivid memories is

10 that of the phone calls. What I see now is that I was

11 100 percent dedicated to answering the phone calls,

12 100 percent committed to helping my family. In stark

13 contrast to my experience is what the Dahlens did. For 942

14 days they made the decision not to pick up their phone.

15 Every single day they had the opportunity to do the right

16 thing, and they didn't.

17 Your Honor, for this reason I am here today, is to

18 ask that -- you to sentence the Dahlens to the highest level

19 available. They need to be held accountable for their

20 actions and prevent -- and prevented -- of their actions and

21 prevent them from being able to do such things again.

22 It was brought to my attention the many letters of

23 support that were submitted on behalf of the Dahlens.

24 Reading through these letters, I saw a common theme. Many

25 people commented on the therapy provided to children at the


22

1 White Horse Ranch. The idea that Doug and Gina Dahlen would

2 sit here today to be sentenced for what they did to my family

3 and could provide any kind of therapy, but especially to

4 children, is absolutely terrifying.

5 In addition to the other roles, I am a

6 chiropractor, a licensed health care practitioner. I

7 understand the importance of regulatory boards. These boards

8 exist to provide guidelines and oversights of professionals

9 in an effort to protect the public. The Dahlens have skirted

10 the licensing boards and avoided guidelines for too long.

11 They claim to provide therapy services to children who are

12 abused, yet they are in no way qualified to do so. They are

13 not trained or licensed therapists. In fact, Gina Dahlen was

14 reportedly a teacher. This means that she, like myself, is a

15 mandated reporter. When faced with two children who were

16 allegedly abused, she did nothing to report such allegations.

17 Had she done what she was ethically bound to do, someone

18 would have found my nieces.

19 The Dahlens are hiding behind the words "therapy,"

20 "Christianity," and "non-profit." The truth is the White

21 Horse Ranch is nothing more than a hobby farm. They're not

22 qualified or equipped to provide therapy or even care for any

23 children under any circumstances. To allow them to continue

24 to operate in this manner is a public safety hazard. Doug

25 and Gina Dahlen hid my nieces at the White Horse Ranch for
23

1 942 days. The act -- they acted with willful disregard for

2 the health, welfare, and safety of Gianna and Samantha.

3 Simply put, they gave veterinary care to animals while

4 ignoring the need to provide health to my nieces. A sick

5 horse was given more love and care than a sick child.

6 The Dahlens are here today to receive a sentence

7 for what they have done. Their attorneys are going to ask

8 for leniency based on the purported good deeds and services

9 they provided in the community through the White Horse Ranch.

10 I ask that you consider that holding two young girls for 942

11 days certainly provides proof that the White Horse Ranch is

12 no place for children; that Doug and Gina Dahlen are not the

13 people that they say they are; that those letters of support

14 come from people that do not understand the impact the

15 Dahlens' actions had on my family; that those people were

16 fooled by the Dahlens into believing that they were helping

17 my nieces and providing them with care.

18 Before I finish today, I would like to take the

19 opportunity to thank all the people who have been so helpful

20 to myself and my family throughout this experience.

21 Kathy Keena and all the professionals here in

22 Dakota County, thank you for -- thank you so much for holding

23 all these people accountable for their actions.

24 Lisa Elliott and her staff at Elliott Law Offices,

25 thank you for advocating for us and sticking by us through


24

1 all these years.

2 The Jacob Wetterling Resource Center, thank you for

3 your support and guidance along the way. It truly took a

4 village to get Samantha and Gianna back, and I know I speak

5 for my entire family when I say thank you to all of you who

6 have become part of our village.

7 And to David, your strength through this has been

8 inspiring, your grace under fire amazing. Thank you for

9 allowing me to help and support you through all of this. I

10 love you.

11 And finally, Samantha and Gianna, I love you so

12 much and am proud to be your aunt and happy to have you home.

13 And lastly, thank you, Judge Asphaug, for all that

14 you've done.

15 THE COURT: Thank you, Dr. Love.

16 MS. LOVE: Thank you.

17 THE COURT: This was very, very thoughtful --

18 MS. LOVE: Thank you.

19 THE COURT: -- and eloquent. Thank you.

20 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, David Rucki also has a

21 victim impact statement to read.

22 THE COURT: Mr. Rucki?

23 MR. RUCKI: Good morning.

24 THE COURT: Good morning.

25 MR. RUCKI: Here we are again.


25

1 I wanted to start today by thanking Dakota County

2 Attorney's Office, especially Kathy Keena and Jim Backstrom.

3 And Your Honor, I want to thank you for ensuring

4 the entire criminal procedure involving all four defendants

5 was concluded with dignity and for your consideration of my

6 family and my children.

7 One of the goals of the victim impact statement is

8 to provide an opportunity for the victim to communicate to

9 the judge and to the offenders how they -- how their crimes

10 have impacted us, the victims. To be honest, since my

11 daughters were found on the Dahlen ranch on November 18th,

12 2015, I haven't wasted much time thinking about them. But

13 when I think of Doug and Gina Dahlen, a few words come to my

14 mind.

15 I would like to start out with the word "coward."

16 We are here today because both of you took the coward's way

17 out by taking a plea deal to lessen your punishment. You

18 should be here today amongst a jury of your peers to be

19 judged for your actions. You should stand up for your

20 beliefs. You claimed your devotion to God's law. This is

21 what you offered as a defense, your self-righteous religious

22 beliefs and condemnation of others. This is the time for you

23 now to stand up for yourselves. You should stand up for

24 yourselves, but we know you can't because you're cowards.

25 You claimed that my daughters could have left at


26

1 any time, that there was nothing holding them there. This is

2 nothing but a cowardly excuse which you use and allows you to

3 put the blame on two innocent children. You are shameless

4 and disgraceful cowards. You claim to be religious,

5 God-fearing people who have more respect for God's law. It

6 seems to me that you have conceived -- conveniently used your

7 so-called religious beliefs to justify your criminal

8 behavior, cowardly hiding behind your religious beliefs,

9 behind a wall constructed of your lies. I went to Catholic

10 school for eight years, yet I don't recall anywhere in my

11 readings or my teachings does it say it's acceptable to God

12 to steal someone's children. I know the Bible, and since you

13 wish to follow the words of the Bible, let me teach you how

14 the Bible describes cowards: "But the cowardly, the

15 unbelieving, the vile, those who practice magic arts, the

16 idolaters and all the liars, they will be consigned to a

17 fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

18 That's out of Revelations 21:8.

19 The next fraud -- the next word that comes to me

20 when I think of both of you is "frauds." Everything that

21 we've learned about you since we found my two daughters can

22 be described in one word, "fraud." You claim the White Horse

23 Ranch was established to provide equine therapy for children,

24 yet you have no license to provide therapy to children. You

25 are both frauds. You claim that you homeschooled my


27

1 children, but you never registered the girls in the

2 Department of Education. That's because you didn't want the

3 girls to be found. You're both frauds. The reality is you

4 didn't homeschool my children; they tried to do it

5 themselves. You were both frauds.

6 You could have enrolled my kids in the local

7 schools. Gina Dahlen worked in the school system. She knew

8 where the schools were; she knew how to enroll kids. With

9 that knowledge of the process, you knew what to do and what

10 not to do to get caught. You wanted them not to be found

11 because you're both frauds.

12 Your fraud continues. This past weekend, the

13 Facebook page of the White Horse Ranch posted this text along

14 with pictures of children: "Spring is here and so are the

15 kids. I think spring is so" -- "such a great time of year.

16 Nature is coming alive, birds are back, leaves are popping

17 out, and the kids are back with such great anticipation and

18 excitement. Thank you, God, for the children, their

19 families, and all who come. You are such a blessing and you

20 are why the ranch exists." Then you use the Bible:

21 "Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from

22 him." Psalms 127:3.

23 I agree that children are a gift from the Lord, but

24 you weren't deputized to deprive a family of the Lord's

25 gifts. The Facebook post shows that you still have no idea
28

1 what you took from my family and my children. You are both

2 frauds, and let me teach you how the Bible describes fraud:

3 "Food gained by fraud is sweet to a man, but afterward his

4 mouth is full of gravel." From Proverbs 20:17.

5 The other word that describes you is "liars." You

6 claim to be innocent and just helping out a mother, yet just

7 two days after my daughters went missing, you drove them to

8 Sauk Centre for an interview with Fox 9. You left my

9 children in a MacDonald's parking lot. While they walked

10 alone to the hotel in Sauk Centre, you stayed away so you

11 were not to be detected. After the interview, my children

12 walked back to your car where you were hiding. You then

13 drove them away where they would not -- they would remain

14 hidden for another 940 days. You are not innocent. You are

15 complacent with everything that's happened to my family since

16 April 19, 2013. You are both liars. You claim to have cared

17 for these girls as if they were your own. You didn't even

18 take care of my children. You didn't take them to a doctor

19 or to a dentist while they were being held at your ranch.

20 The answer was "no" because you were fearing being caught.

21 You didn't treat my children like your own. You were both

22 liars.

23 The horrible truth since my daughters have come

24 home is Samantha and Gianna have undergone numerous

25 expensive, painful dentist visits. Gianna came home


29

1 complaining that she had a broken tooth and a massive

2 pressure on her teeth. She needed to have nine teeth

3 extracted and major reconstruction work done on her mouth.

4 She's only 17. Samantha has four teeth extracted. She has

5 to endure painful and extensive work to straighten her teeth

6 and correct her bite. You are liars when you claim you took

7 care -- good care of my children. You are both liars.

8 Let me teach you how the Bible describes liars:

9 "The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who

10 are trustworthy." That's Proverbs 12:22.

11 THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to pause for just

12 a second. Would you like some water?

13 MR. RUCKI: Yeah. Am I smacking too loud?

14 THE COURT: No, but I know it's thirsty business to

15 testify and to speak.

16 MR. RUCKI: The final word to describe you is

17 "evil," for you two have not had the common sense to figure

18 out that something was wrong. Let's review the facts. A

19 complete stranger drops off two of her kids at your ranch.

20 She doesn't give you a phone number; she leaves you with no

21 contact information. You apparently were told the girls were

22 going to be at your home for a few days, but days turns into

23 weeks, weeks turns into months, months turns into years. You

24 never once questioned the motive of a stranger who abandoned

25 my children at your ranch. You never reached out to law


30

1 enforcement. You never considered the father desperately

2 seeking and looking for his own children while their

3 siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends

4 were distraught over the two missing children. Never once.

5 942 days later, my children were found living on your ranch

6 by law enforcement.

7 Out of a concern for their safety and with fear

8 that my daughters would be taken again, my cousin assisted

9 our family in traveling with my daughters out of state, where

10 we were reunited. One of my daughters told my cousin a

11 horrific story on how Doug Dahlen made them brutally kill a

12 raccoon with clubs that had been trapped on the ranch. The

13 two girls should have been in school and hanging out with

14 their friends. Instead, they were forced to brutalize and

15 kill a defenseless animal.

16 You are both inhumane monsters, and you are evil.

17 You both are delusional in your self-righteousness and your

18 own claims of compassion for children. Nothing I have

19 learned about you leads me to this conclusion. You are a

20 fraud on the system by claiming you are in business of

21 helping -- of helping children. You claim to care for

22 children, yet -- you boast hundreds of children that have

23 been to your ranch, yet my two daughters were there on your

24 ranch for 942 days, during which you denied them basic

25 medical treatment; you denied them education; you denied them


31

1 their family, their youth, their freedom, and their life.

2 You stole so much from my children's life you'll never -- it

3 can never be replaced and it is forever gone.

4 One of the saddest, most difficult moments for me

5 was about five minutes after the girls came home.

6 THE COURT: I think you meant to say "five months"?

7 MR. RUCKI: Five months. I'm sorry.

8 THE COURT: Yes.

9 MR. RUCKI: Words are transposing on me.

10 THE COURT: Yeah. No, I know. I just wanted to

11 make sure that the record reflects --

12 MR. RUCKI: I'll repeat that.

13 One of the saddest moments and most difficult times

14 for me happened about five months after the girls came home.

15 Gianna approached me very honestly and very sincerely and

16 asked me when this criminal trial was over if she could go

17 and visit the White Horse Ranch. I told her I didn't think

18 that was a good idea, but she was persistent. I said I don't

19 think she understood what really happened. As my daughter

20 stared at me with a puzzled face, I calmly and in a

21 comforting voice said to her, "If you really want to see

22 these people, I would hope that you would wait 'til you're in

23 your mid-thirties. I think at this point in your life, you'd

24 be able to understand better what truly happened to you. You

25 and I see the Dahlens very differently. I see the Dahlens as


32

1 very bad people."

2 Then I said, "Let me ask you this: You've had a

3 lot of painful dental work done. When you came home, you had

4 a broken tooth that you had for a very long time before you

5 came home. Did the Dahlens ever take you to the dentist?"

6 And her expression and her face began to wane as she

7 understood -- began to understand my concerns. Then I said,

8 "No, because the Dahlens didn't want you found." Her eyes

9 started welling up. Then I asked next, "Did the Dahlens ever

10 take you to the doctor?" She didn't speak because I knew the

11 answer. I repeated my previous answer: "No, because the

12 Dahlens didn't want you found."

13 I asked -- I next asked Gianna about school: "Did

14 the Dahlens ever take you to school or homeschool you?"

15 Again she didn't speak. "No, because the Dahlens didn't want

16 you found." Gianna broke down in tears. Like I have done so

17 many times with my daughters since they have come home, I've

18 comforted them and helped them like a father should.

19 You monsters taught my daughters to believe that

20 you are good people. Like so many kidnapping victims, they

21 identified with their captors. My daughters developed a

22 similar misplaced psychological alliance. It will take the

23 rest of my children's life to undo the damage you have caused

24 them and my family. You are both evil, and I hate you for

25 the pain and the trauma you have inflicted on my family.


33

1 You two stole 942 days from my family. You stole

2 the most very important piece from my girls' childhood.

3 These two girls came back to Lakeville a spectacle, strangers

4 in their own hometown, the only place they've ever known.

5 All their friends have moved on; school has moved on.

6 Football games, dances, homecoming, prom, they all came and

7 went. While my daughters were serving as your unpaid

8 farmhands doing field work, killing animals from dawn 'til

9 dusk, their life with their friends kept moving along.

10 Samantha never really got to experience high

11 school, as she attended half of ninth grade and only half of

12 twelfth grade. She never got a chance to rebuild the lasting

13 friendships we all develop in high school. Sixteen months

14 after coming home, Gianna is still struggling to rebuild

15 friendships she lost during -- while being held on your

16 ranch.

17 What you two have done to these girls is cruel.

18 This was supposed to be the best years of their lives, and

19 virtually not -- and they are virtually nonexistent. They

20 were supposed to have lasting memories, friends, dances,

21 football games, and parties. They haven't fulfilled -- they

22 haven't fully experienced any of these. This is -- as you

23 both have stolen this from them. You are both truly evil.

24 You will never fully -- there will never fully be any justice

25 for what has happened to my daughters and my family.


34

1 I want to end my statement today with one final

2 passage from the Bible. Both of you, Doug and Gina Dahlen,

3 proudly boast that you follow God's law over man's law. Let

4 me teach you how the Bible describes people who refuse to

5 obey the law: "Everyone must obey the state's authority,

6 because no authority exists without God's permission. The

7 existence of authority have been put there by God. Whoever

8 opposes the existing authority opposes what God has ordered;

9 and anyone who does this will bring judgment on themselves.

10 For rulers are not to be feared by those who do good, but by

11 those who do evil. Would you like to be unafraid of those in

12 authority? Then do what is good, and they will praise you,

13 because they are God's servant working for your own good.

14 But if you do evil, then be afraid of them, because their

15 power to punish is real. They are God's servants and carry

16 out God's punishment on those who do evil." That's from

17 Romans 13:1-4.

18 And one quick little added deal: This request of

19 200 hours of community service got me thinking. I suffered

20 for two thousand -- 22,656 days [sic]. You know, I suffered

21 not by the hour but by the minute. That's 1,000,359 minutes,

22 three hundred -- it's just astronomical. Their request is

23 laughable.

24 Thank you.

25 THE COURT: Thank you.


35

1 Ms. Keena?

2 MS. KEENA: The State has nothing further.

3 THE COURT: All right. Let's take a short recess.

4 We'll reconvene at five to 11:00. Thank you.

5 (A recess was taken.)

6 THE COURT: Is the defense ready to proceed?

7 MR. WHITE: Yes, Your Honor.

8 MR. KEIL: Yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: How would you like to proceed?

10 MR. WHITE: I would prefer to go first, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. White.

12 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Your Honor. May I remain

13 seated, Your Honor?

14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I'd like to apologize for

16 two mistakes I made. One is I had filed a motion for a

17 downward dispositional departure. I believe if Sammy Lee

18 Jackson had come out maybe a week before, I'd have a better

19 understanding of durational versus dispositional departures.

20 Now in my defense, previously in the past we had

21 filed motions to have a felony-level sentence or a gross

22 misdemeanor sentence sentenced as a -- either a gross

23 misdemeanor or a misdemeanor under 609.13, and I thought for

24 sure the court always adopted my request for a downward

25 dispositional departure, when in fact, they granted it.


36

1 In any event, Mrs. Keena -- Ms. Keena has corrected

2 me on that, and I just wanted to mention that as well.

3 THE COURT: If it's any comfort, every time I've

4 addressed a non-felony disposition, I too have styled it as a

5 dispositional departure, and I've had the good fortune of

6 having the County Attorney's Office correct me before I went

7 too far astray, so --

8 MR. WHITE: Generally when we're doing a durational

9 departure is we're looking at maybe 24 months or 36 months.

10 We're not looking at a one-day downward departure, as it is

11 here.

12 The other mistake that I -- and I'll take

13 responsibility since my co-counsel probably was adopting some

14 of my language from the memo, given the fact that he was

15 going through what he claims to be a traumatic time as an

16 expectant father. And I give him some credit for just

17 surviving all of that. But any references to a suggestion

18 that there was a gross misdemeanor disposition contemplated

19 at the plea is inaccurate; that the Dahlens clearly

20 understood that they were pleading guilty with no promises, a

21 straight plea to Count V, which is accurately reflected in

22 the presentence investigation report. I think it's mentioned

23 there accurately that we, the defense, would move for a gross

24 misdemeanor disposition at the time of sentencing.

25 The presentence investigation report, Your Honor,


37

1 if I may state, is -- correctly identifies this offense as a

2 Severity Level 1 offense and that the defendant, Gina Dahlen,

3 has zero criminal history points. According, again, to the

4 PSI, they use this risk assessment tool, the LS/CMI. I don't

5 recall specifically what it stands for, but it evaluates what

6 risk factors there are in existence as applies to this

7 particular defendant. And Probation determined there were no

8 primary factors and no lesser criminal risk factors. None

9 existed.

10 The PSI recommends a stay of imposition of

11 sentence; serve one day in jail; credit. And I think it's

12 been argued by the State there was no jail credit, so the

13 stay of imposition that's being recommended I would assume

14 would include a stay of all jail time, and that in lieu of

15 that, the recommendations would be 100 hours of community

16 service in the first year and then another hundred hours

17 community service in the second year.

18 The restitution here is a fairly sizable sum as it

19 relates to the Minnesota Crime Victims Reparations Board of

20 $10,000, which would be jointly and severally paid by other

21 defendants, particularly in this case.

22 Now if I may, Your Honor, as stated, this offense

23 is a Severity Level 1 offense. As far as felony-level

24 offenses go, it is ranked as low as you can go. I mean, it

25 is the least severity-level offense that you can possibly


38

1 have as a felony. What makes it a felony obviously in terms

2 of real numbers is that it's a presumptive stay of one year

3 and one day. Mrs. Dahlen is asking the Court for a gross

4 misdemeanor disposition, which in real numbers is a one-day

5 downward departure.

6 Now as I mentioned, the State filed a memorandum

7 titled State's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants'

8 Motion for a Durational Departure, which is really a

9 dispositional departure. I'll correct that. It's a motion

10 for a durational departure. The State goes on to state that

11 the imposition of a 365-day misdemeanor sentence on a felony

12 conviction that carries a presumptive year-and-a-day sentence

13 is a durational departure rather than a dispositional

14 departure. It cites to State v. Bauerly to support this

15 position. Bauerly is an interesting case, Your Honor. In

16 that case, there also Probation had recommended a stay of

17 imposition of sentence on a Severity Level 3 offense. And in

18 Bauerly, the district court had departed the one day and

19 commented that this would be a durational departure of one

20 day, from the year and a day to the 365 days. The State

21 appealed that determination, and again, the appellate court

22 noted in its decision that the departure from a felony to a

23 gross misdemeanor was one day.

24 Now nonetheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed the

25 departure to a gross misdemeanor in Bauerly, but again stated


39

1 that this one-day departure was a downward durational

2 departure rather than a dispositional departure, I think as

3 the State has accurately stated in their brief. Since

4 Bauerly, the courts have stated that a single mitigating

5 factor may provide a substantial and compelling reason to

6 impose a downward durational departure at sentencing. A

7 single mitigating factor.

8 Now the State submits that in order to obtain a

9 downward durational departure as opposed to a dispositional

10 departure, the Court should look to those factors that

11 reflect the seriousness of the offense, not the

12 characteristics of the offender. The State goes on in their

13 memorandum to submit that there is a series -- they have a

14 series of six bullet points or facts that it states that are

15 indisputable that justify -- does not support -- does not

16 justify, does not support a downward durational departure.

17 The problem is at least five of those six are concerned with

18 the offense conduct of Ms. Grazzini-Rucki and DeDe Evavold.

19 MS. KEENA: And Your Honor, I'm going to object to

20 that characterization. The bullet points that Mr. White is

21 referring to are actually the undisputed facts of the case,

22 just to outline what the facts are and not why I think it's

23 more onerous than the typical case.

24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you for that, that

25 clarification. This is argument, and I accept the State's


40

1 clarification.

2 But go ahead.

3 MR. WHITE: The State goes on to state or cite to a

4 number of cases that supposedly supports the position this

5 case is more serious when compared to other cases of

6 deprivation of parental rights. The problem here is in

7 comparing these cases, published and unpublished, the

8 defendant appellants are similarly situated to the primary

9 actor or the individuals who initiated the actual offense,

10 the deprivation of parental rights, specifically similar to

11 what Ms. Grazzini-Rucki and Ms. DeDe Evavold did. Those

12 specific defendant appellants and these cases --

13 THE COURT: Let me jump in. I view the cases cited

14 by the State as distinguishable from the issue in this case

15 in that the issue that was decided in -- the State cited a

16 body of cases. In those cases, the analysis was, Is there

17 sufficient evidence to support a conviction? And in this

18 case, the Dahlens certainly concede that there's sufficient

19 evidence to support a conviction. They pled guilty to the

20 offense. And the cases cited by the State go to sufficiency

21 of the evidence and not to disposition.

22 So that's the -- that's how I distinguish those

23 cases.

24 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, and again, I just subtly

25 disagree in the sense that I think Ms. Keena was stating the
41

1 record does not support a downward durational departure, for

2 this case is not less onerous when compared with other acts

3 constituting the same offense, when in fact, those particular

4 cases are all being litigated by defendant appellants who are

5 similarly situated to what Grazzini-Rucki and --

6 THE COURT: Okay.

7 MR. WHITE: -- DeDe Evavold did. In fact, to take

8 the point further, in the Rice case -- in the Rice case, it's

9 commented by the court when -- I mean, they reversed it based

10 on -- I mean, Judge Hudson believed -- Justice Hudson now --

11 believed that the pro se appellant's due process rights were

12 violated but commented also that there were a variety of

13 places where the individual minors stayed during the course

14 of that deprivation of parental rights. And as far as we

15 know, they were never charged. There's nothing in the record

16 to suggest that they were charged with a similar charge of

17 deprivation of parental rights.

18 If I may, Your Honor, I know the Court has received

19 a number of exhibits from the State, and I would submit the

20 judicial order regarding the Child Protection letters --

21 records and ask the Court to accept this as part of the

22 record. (Handing.) This is primarily the summary of the

23 interview conducted by Child Protection of the subject girls

24 in November of 2015. I believe it was five days after they

25 were found.
42

1 THE COURT: Well, the record should reflect that --

2 I believe we should probably re-number this. I see that you

3 have marked this. Let's re-mark this.

4 (Off-the-record discussion.)

5 (Exhibit No. 8 marked for identification.)

6 THE CLERK: This exhibit shall be marked as

7 Exhibit 8.

8 THE COURT: Okay. Exhibit 8 consists of an order

9 dated July 14, 2016, directing Dakota County Social Services

10 Agency to produce its complete file on the children to me for

11 review, together with an eight-page -- well, I guess pages 1

12 through 5 of an eight-page Social Services record that I, in

13 fact, reviewed as part of my responsibilities in presiding

14 over the case.

15 I certainly can take judicial notice of the records

16 that I have reviewed in connection with the case and the

17 orders that I've issued in this case. To the extent --

18 Exhibit 8, if received, will be received as a confidential

19 court record.

20 Does the State have any objection to that?

21 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, the State would object to

22 this document on the basis of relevance for the sentencing.

23 The reason why these documents were reviewed by the Court was

24 part of the Paradee motion to determine whether there was any

25 relevant evidence that would go towards the Dahlens' defense


43

1 that they were potentially going to submit in this case, and

2 I -- the State fails to see how it has any relevance for the

3 sentencing.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, if I could explain the

6 relevance?

7 THE COURT: Go ahead.

8 MR. WHITE: The State has so articulately stated

9 that because this is a durational departure, we should look

10 at the offense conduct as opposed to the offender factors.

11 In other words, the Trog factors are not applicable in terms

12 of the Court's determination of sentencing in a downward

13 departure, but the offense conduct is relevant. The

14 interviewer, Paula Pletsch, I believe is asking the children

15 specifically about the defendants, their conduct, how it

16 relates to the offense. It's highly relevant. We've heard a

17 great deal of victim witness impact statements regarding the

18 Dahlens. The children five days after they were discovered

19 provide detailed -- or at least a considerable amount of

20 information regarding their experience with the Dahlens.

21 THE COURT: Well, Exhibit 8 is received as a

22 confidential exhibit. It contains confidential Child

23 Protection records, and it is received as a confidential

24 record.

25 MR. WHITE: On January 23rd, 2017, Your Honor, Gina


44

1 Dahlen and her husband pled guilty to Count V of the amended

2 criminal complaint. Again, this was a straight plea. Prior

3 to that change of plea, however, Mrs. Dahlen had attended

4 every court appearance, traveling from Herman, Minnesota,

5 with her husband, as ordered by the Court. During the course

6 of these proceedings, a key State's witness passed away,

7 unfortunately, and during the course of this case -- so the

8 State, without that particular witness, had stated on the

9 record in court that it lost sort of the chain of events and

10 therefore subpoenaed Mrs. Dahlen and her husband to testify

11 in the two companion cases that went to trial, State of

12 Minnesota vs. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and State of Minnesota

13 vs. Deirdre Evavold.

14 Now Gina Dahlen provided substantial assistance by

15 testifying for the State. She testified honestly and without

16 agenda, never asserted the Fifth Amendment on the record

17 during the court proceeding. The Court had granted use

18 immunity previously. The State obtained convictions in both

19 of those cases.

20 Now, I understand this is not federal court; this

21 is state court. We don't have a legal concept known as

22 "substantial assistance" as in federal court. Under United

23 States Sentencing Guidelines 5K1.1, it is highly common, if

24 not regularly filed, where a assistant U.S. attorney would

25 file a motion for a downward departure based on substantial


45

1 assistance. This is a concept that is utilized by state

2 courts all the time.

3 If I just may as a record -- and I'm not trying to

4 beat my own drum here, but the Court may recall Tyesha

5 Edwards, a young girl that was killed unfortunately when she

6 was sitting doing her own homework in her own home by Myon

7 Burrell. That was a case that went up to the Supreme Court

8 actually three times, and during the course of the trial that

9 finally convicted Myon Burrell, my client provided

10 substantial assistance and testified at trial and received a

11 very nice benefit when it came to sentencing. Now that is

12 part of the record as well, at least it is in terms of these

13 other two matters where Ms. Dahlen testified, provided

14 substantial assistance to the State, but has not received a

15 benefit up 'til now in terms of her efforts to assist the

16 State in those two cases.

17 I recognize the State may say that we fought that

18 tooth and nail, but at the same time, we still have a

19 constitution under state and federal law that suggests you

20 don't -- you have a right to not incriminate yourself in a

21 court of law. Obviously we have rules and regulations that

22 suggest use immunity may be applied, and the Court made those

23 decisions, and she respected them.

24 Now, Your Honor, we've heard some victim witness

25 impact statements about Ms. Dahlen and her husband, and I


46

1 want to just reiterate for the record that the Court has

2 received letters from foster parents who cared for the

3 children 11 days -- for 11 days, I believe, after the girls

4 were found by law enforcement on the Dahlen ranch. And I

5 think that those particular letters are particularly

6 insightful, particularly Jim Norwig's letter, where he had

7 gone through a similar experience. And when he was first

8 approached to take these children into foster care, had a

9 great deal of appreciation and understanding about what

10 Mr. Rucki went through and really just had a hard time with

11 what the Dahlens had experienced or observed.

12 After those 11 days, I think he came away

13 completely turned around in his understanding, turned around

14 180 to the point where he's asking the Court now for

15 leniency. And based on his observations, I think there's --

16 obviously there's a certain amount of concern that they were

17 providing information that was under Data Privacy and they

18 didn't want to go any further than what they observed, but

19 they did not want to repeat statements. They showed a great

20 deal of integrity and honor in terms of how they wrote that

21 letter, I believe, and I think it's very instructive because

22 I think they were two individuals that have a lot at stake as

23 foster parents and working for Dakota County.

24 The point is again, Your Honor, I think that Gina

25 Dahlen and her husband are not typical defendants, let alone
47

1 typical people. As the probation officer wrote accurately in

2 her presentence investigation report, Gina Dahlen has lived

3 her life pro-socially. She has tried to do the right thing

4 for people and has created an environment where she's trying

5 to bring families together, heal abused children as well as

6 neglected horses. It is a place where children experience

7 healing and wholeness through animals. Do they have a foster

8 care license? No. Do they have a therapy license? No.

9 There's many other places around the country that provide

10 equine therapy to children. Some states have licenses for

11 it; this state has not yet demanded that that be the case.

12 Mr. and Mrs. Dahlen learned that matching an abused

13 child with a neglected or abused horse can create miracles.

14 I mean, the point here again is that they were not just

15 people who had a ranch. I mean, they had a specific mission

16 to help children. And it may sound simplistic, it may sound

17 idealistic, but it's real. They have treated over 400 kids

18 and families over -- since their inception in 2011. They

19 became an official not-for-profit organization in 2013.

20 Their mission is a heroic mission that you have to see to

21 believe what takes place in simply a 90-minute session with a

22 child. When confronted with this situation, with two girls

23 that had a history of running away, they stood up and

24 provided a sanctuary --

25 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that


48

1 on the record. There's no history of these girls being

2 runaways. They left once with their mother.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to at

5 least consider those Child Protection records that have been

6 provided to the Court that I -- I didn't count the number of

7 times Child Protection and Dr. Gilbertson and Dr. Reitman

8 talked about runaways and running away and the specific

9 incidents of actually running away, but there's no question

10 the record is replete with that.

11 THE COURT: Well, we know certainly that the girls

12 left the family home in April of 2013. We do know that.

13 MR. WHITE: Right.

14 THE COURT: So let's move on.

15 MR. WHITE: Okay.

16 In any event, the Dahlens provided a safe place, an

17 environment where abused children could have a chance to

18 heal. They erred on the side of the child. As the defense

19 attorney, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard that in

20 court from a Midwest Children's Resource Center professional,

21 from a Cornerstone professional, from other professionals,

22 Child Protection professionals who have said you always err

23 on the side of the child.

24 But let's just for a minute look at the offense

25 conduct. What does Child Protection say? What do the foster


49

1 parents say? In fact, what do the girls say? The exhibit

2 that we have provided the Court where Paula Pletsch is

3 interviewing the girls, S.V.R. told the social worker that

4 the biggest thing that was taught at the ranch was

5 forgiveness. S.V.R. stated it was a great -- it was great up

6 there. They were given hugs and love. She loves Doug and

7 Gina, states Gina was like a mother to her. G.J.R. was

8 interviewed the same day by Child Protection and stated that

9 she feels Doug and Gina gave up their lives for them. G.J.R.

10 stated that she felt at peace there. They talked about God

11 and read the Bible. They, meaning the Dahlens, taught her to

12 forgive. According to the father, who was in court today,

13 she still wants to go back and visit.

14 The notes from Child Protection document that the

15 likelihood the girls would run, from the perspective of the

16 Dahlens, was real. In fact, when they were talking about

17 moving them from foster care to the family -- or a family

18 transitioning program in California, there was a concern

19 about the availability of sex trafficking in California.

20 What a nightmare that Child Protection was facing. Paula

21 Pletsch asked that the girls submit a contract, at least a

22 verbal contract, that they would not run.

23 In the preface to the Minnesota Sentencing

24 Guidelines, Your Honor, for mitigating factors, this Court is

25 I'm sure aware the Guidelines state that the following is a


50

1 non-exclusive list. We are asking for the Court to depart

2 downward durationally one day, one day based on one single

3 mitigating factor. And again, looking to the offense

4 conduct, compare what the Dahlens did to the defendant

5 appellants in Fitman, Mydee, Motz, Rice, Adler, but more

6 significantly, to Grazzini-Rucki and Evavold. Those cases

7 were about individuals who made these choices to deprive a

8 custodial parent of his rights. What the Dahlens were

9 provided -- the information they were provided was not

10 something that they chose. They did not make a choice. They

11 were reacting to the observations that they were making and

12 the statements they were hearing from two minor children who

13 expressed this tremendous fear.

14 Please consider the substantial assistance

15 Defendant Ms. Dahlen provided to the State. There's nothing

16 in the State's memo, again, regarding the fact that

17 Ms. Dahlen testified at trial. She provided that chronology

18 of events that established their case that led to the

19 convictions of Grazzini-Rucki and Evavold. And by pleading

20 guilty and accepting responsibility in January for their

21 actions, not putting these children through another trial,

22 consider the words of the girls: The Dahlens gave up their

23 life for them. Gina Dahlen -- Gianna Dahlen [sic] wants to

24 go back there. Sam said all she got was love and hugs. And

25 now we're hearing about all kinds of concerns, but I have no


51

1 way of determining what's true or false, just a record from

2 Child Protection at the time that the girls were interviewed

3 and there were concerns about what do we do next? Well, it

4 sounds like they didn't come back to the father for another

5 five months.

6 So, there were concerns. The Dahlens had concerns,

7 yes. Was it too long? I don't think there's any question

8 that they would say -- could they have done something

9 different, they would absolutely say that to the Court. But

10 at the same time, they pled guilty, they've accepted

11 responsibility to an offense that calls for a day -- a year

12 and a day stayed, and we're asking for a one-day downward

13 departure and no additional jail time so that they can

14 continue to do the wonderful things that they do.

15 This woman (indicating), Your Honor, she -- she's

16 not a liar; she's not a coward; she's not the monster. And

17 she'll take the high road when discussing this case and

18 giving her right of allocution. She's not about

19 name-calling. We live in a very divisive, cynical time.

20 When is the healing going to begin? I think it should begin

21 now.

22 THE COURT: Would you like Ms. Dahlen to give her

23 statement at this time? Does she wish to give a statement?

24 MR. WHITE: Yes, she does, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: All right.


52

1 GINA DAHLEN: Thank you for the opportunity.

2 I'm -- I take -- do take responsibility for everything that

3 has happened and transpired, and I'm sorry about the

4 things -- the situation. You know, when we got the phone

5 call that they were coming for -- you know, these girls

6 needed a place for a couple of days, we thought a couple of

7 days. And it wasn't that we took them, that we tried to keep

8 them there; that was not our intention. We provided them

9 with a place, and we did the best that we could to care for

10 them, but their emotions didn't lie. You know, you can sit

11 back and say, "You should have done this" or "You should have

12 done this through that process and that time," and -- but

13 until you're in it and you're looking at two girls that

14 are -- that are so fearful with emotion and they're crying

15 and they're sobbing and they're begging you to allow them to

16 stay, what do you do?

17 And -- and, I mean, we -- we -- we tried to get

18 them -- you know, we made sure we told them, you know, "You

19 need to" -- "You can't just stay here." It's like they tried

20 to hide themselves. They didn't want to be found. We, you

21 know, entertained them, going out. We brought them out; we

22 went to restaurants; we did things with them. We did the

23 best that we could to educate them, provide for them. And at

24 the end of the day, it was -- you know, we wanted to provide

25 them with a safe place and just love on them. It wasn't our
53

1 intention to hold them there. They could -- they could have

2 gone at any time, but what we were faced with is they've

3 already run and they had threatened to run again. That was

4 real.

5 And I had been through conferences on sex

6 trafficking and working with kids, following up with kids

7 that have been through that. And the percent of kids that

8 get into sex trafficking that are runaways is extremely high,

9 and that was a real fear for us. And we weren't about to --

10 to face that, so we allowed them to stay.

11 And I can't imagine what the father and what the

12 family was going through, and that breaks my heart, as it

13 broke my heart to hear what these girls had told me what they

14 had been through. And unless you're in that situation, it's

15 hard to -- to sit back and say, you know -- and as I evaluate

16 it and I think about what would I have done differently,

17 yeah, there's things I would have done differently, but their

18 emotions never changed.

19 And -- and so what we do at the ranch is we allow

20 kids to have an experience, very different from -- you know,

21 the girls have a different situation, but I just want you to

22 understand too that, you know, we love on these kids. When

23 they come for a 90-minute session, we're not required to be

24 licensed. We're a non-profit, faith-based organization, and

25 we provide an opportunity for kids to have a place to go.


54

1 They open up, they share, and God just works through these

2 animals, which, you know, I can't -- I can't really -- it's

3 hard to describe unless you sit back and you watch it. And

4 it empowers them, and at the end of the day, you know, we're

5 working, you know, jobs just to be able to keep it available.

6 And, you know, there are situations -- you know,

7 the ranch is operating on a personal property, and so, you

8 know, it's not -- just so the Court understands, it's, like,

9 the property is for sale; White Horse Ranch is not for sale.

10 It's a non-profit. It's operating on the ranch and will

11 continue to operate. But at the end of the day, you know,

12 it's the kids.

13 And I just want to thank you and I want you to know

14 that that's where our heart was. That's where our hearts

15 are; it's for them. And we just do the best that we can

16 every day to provide them with those opportunities.

17 Thank you.

18 THE COURT: Thank you.

19 Mr. Keil.

20 MR. KEIL: Well, Your Honor, I don't want to

21 necessarily recite what Mr. White said, as he said it very

22 eloquently. This is a unique and difficult case because

23 there are multiple players with multiple agendas involved.

24 It is easy -- as Ms. Dahlen had said, it's easy for anyone in

25 this courtroom to Monday-morning-quarterback their actions.


55

1 What's difficult is to put ourselves in their shoes

2 and have two girls show up at their doorstep, tell them the

3 things that they had told them, reactive physically and

4 emotionally as they are describing these events, and to tell

5 the Dahlens, "Do it differently." They would do things

6 differently, yes. They've taken responsibility for these

7 actions, but I think what's important to understand is that

8 this is less onerous than other situations like this. They

9 did not facilitate these girls coming to their ranch. They

10 did not orchestrate this.

11 As has been discussed, the mother's agenda was

12 related to the bitter divorce going on with the father.

13 Ms. Evavold's agenda was political. The Dahlens' agenda was

14 solely for the welfare of those girls. Mr. Dahlen and I have

15 had conversations. When law enforcement showed up, law

16 enforcement told them, "When we find girls this long gone, we

17 find them either in a crack house, a whorehouse, or dead."

18 I remember it was the hearing that we showed up to

19 argue motions, and as we waited, there was an individual that

20 came before this Court who had pled guilty to soliciting a

21 minor. And he was granted a --

22 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

23 anything that happened in the sentencing proceeding outside

24 of this matter.

25 MR. KEIL: Your Honor, I'm just saying --


56

1 MS. KEENA: That's -- that's a cheap shot.

2 MR. KEIL: It's not a cheap shot. I'm just saying

3 it for context.

4 MS. KEENA: Yes, it is.

5 MR. KEIL: I'm saying it for context.

6 THE COURT: Well --

7 MR. KEIL: I'm not trying to argue that's the

8 reason for their departure; I'm just trying to put some

9 context on it.

10 THE COURT: You know that departure decisions in

11 cases are made --

12 MR. KEIL: That's what I'm trying to say. I'm

13 trying to put some context on it. I'm not trying to argue

14 because the Court did this in that case, they need to do it

15 here. My point is that the Dahlens here were trying to

16 prevent that. They did not want these girls running away and

17 getting involved in that kind of work. This is less onerous,

18 again, because this is just a different situation that they

19 were put in. I mean, Mr. White has said it all, but their

20 actions were done in a manner to provide a safe environment.

21 It was not with malice towards the father; it was not malice

22 towards anyone. It was the sole concern for those girls.

23 It is highlighted extensively in the Child

24 Protection records. It is highlighted in the letters

25 provided by the foster care family. Whether or not these


57

1 girls were telling the truth, were brainwashed, their

2 emotions, their statements, everything that they told and

3 showed the Dahlens in terms of their fears was real. The

4 Dahlens acted out of love.

5 It again is just so difficult to sit here and tell

6 these two individuals that have girls who have run away,

7 continue to threaten to run away, to say, "Call law

8 enforcement and say, 'Hey, we got these girls, and they'll

9 run if something bad happens to them.'" They would have done

10 it differently. They would have acted sooner than what they

11 did. They understand what they did was wrong. But again, it

12 goes back to the less-onerous aspect of this offense.

13 They did not -- I think just a crucial point in

14 this case is they did not receive any money, any support for

15 those girls. It came out of their own pocket. Mom wasn't

16 sending them a check per month saying, "Keep these girls

17 here, do" -- you know, "Here's a check." It came out of

18 their own pocket solely to keep those girls safe, to not have

19 them run away. They did not force them to stay there.

20 They took responsibility for this. They want

21 healing, as they have preached with those girls for their

22 stay at their ranch. They want forgiveness. I think based

23 upon all the reasons that Mr. White stated, that we stated in

24 our memo, that is extensively in our files and our previous

25 memos and Child Protection, the letters that were filed in


58

1 support of the Dahlens, all of that clearly establishes that

2 in terms of the Dahlens, this was less onerous than other

3 deprivation-of-parental-rights cases, especially

4 Ms. Grazzini-Rucki and Ms. Evavold.

5 I think based upon that, this Court has a reason to

6 depart and grant a misdemeanor disposition.

7 Thank you.

8 THE COURT: Mr. Dahlen, do you wish to give a

9 statement?

10 DOUGLAS DAHLEN: Yes, I do. Would you like me to

11 speak into the microphone or just talk loud?

12 THE COURT: Whatever's most comfortable for you.

13 DOUGLAS DAHLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

14 When the girls came to our place, it was pretty

15 routine. It was going to be just a three-day thing, and it

16 had happened many times before, so much so that I never even

17 got off the couch. I laid there and watched TV. And when I

18 got up and saw the girls for the first time, I was stunned at

19 how scared they were. I've seen a lot of messed-up kids, and

20 I've never seen a kid that scared before.

21 And the -- the -- just the -- it just stuck in my

22 brain so bad, I can see it right now. Every time that it

23 came up that we would have -- you know, "What's going to

24 happen? What are we going to do?", I would see that fear

25 come back and I would see -- you have no idea how they would
59

1 break down and beg us and plead with us, "Please don't make

2 us leave." And I just couldn't do it; I couldn't kick them

3 out. I mean, I've never seen anybody that scared before.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, could I just state one

6 thing for the record?

7 THE COURT: Yes.

8 MS. KEENA: Just in response to comments about the

9 Child Protection records in this case and interviews

10 conducted by the social worker, I would like the record to

11 reflect that in that matter, there was a CHIPS petition

12 filed, but the presiding judge did not grant the petition and

13 dismissed it because the father took appropriate steps for

14 reunification, from which the girls did not run, as is being

15 touted here today.

16 Thank you.

17 THE COURT: Thank you.

18 All right, before I invite the attorneys and the

19 Dahlens to stand before the bench for sentencing, I do have

20 some comments for Mr. Rucki and for Dr. Love.

21 You have been here for every hearing on every case,

22 and you go home every day and do the hard work of raising --

23 Mr. Rucki, of raising up your kids and going on with life.

24 And when you stood up and said that you hadn't given much

25 thought to the Dahlens, I believe you because your plate is


60

1 full. And when you stopped to think about the Dahlens, your

2 anger was clear and your anger was righteous, and your anger

3 is justified. And I thank you for one of the most

4 thoughtfully prepared victim impact statements, if not the

5 most thoughtfully prepared victim impact statement I have

6 heard in 22 years on the bench because you did not stop at

7 just your own -- it wasn't your -- it wasn't based on your

8 personal -- your personal reaction but on how this had

9 affected the girls, and you put this into a spiritual

10 context, and I thank you for that.

11 And Dr. Love, I thank you for -- if your brother's

12 was the most thoughtfully prepared, yours came in a very

13 close second. In 22 years on the bench, I don't believe I

14 have been privileged to have such a glimpse into how people's

15 lives have been affected in the way you revealed to us today.

16 These legal proceedings are going to come to a

17 close, and we've all -- well, it's -- it's pandering for me

18 to say we've all lived with this because of course the people

19 who are living with this are the Rucki children and the Rucki

20 family, and -- but it's been a long road. And of course I

21 understand that, you know, today I'm going to close a file,

22 Ms. Keena's going to close a file, and Mr. White and Mr. Keil

23 will close up their files and turn to the next cases, and

24 that's certainly not the case for you and for your family.

25 Nothing magical or restorative happens today. Your


61

1 lives go on, and the hard work of raising up these kids and

2 supporting them and nurturing them and loving them goes on.

3 And that, of course, will be true to the day you die. And it

4 is your great privilege and responsibility. I know that you

5 take it on willingly and gratefully.

6 And I have been, over my involvement in the case,

7 so amazed, Mr. Rucki, at the pragmatic, very practical, very

8 hands-on, very realistic, very loving way you have set about

9 being a dad to five children whose lives were turned upside

10 down. So thank you.

11 So with that, please stand before the bench for

12 sentencing.

13 And I'm going to pronounce one sentence; it will

14 apply equally to both of you. All right? And we'll have two

15 separate sentencing orders.

16 This -- it seems so odd to talk about this as a

17 case because what we're talking about is a family and

18 children and community, but since we're in court and we have

19 a case caption and it is a prosecution that brought us here

20 today, I'm going to just talk about it in terms of the case.

21 This case has challenged I think every person who

22 has heard about it, who has worked in some capacity on the

23 case, and has caused me to think and ponder and anguish about

24 what constitutes justice. And I can't speak for Mr. Rucki.

25 I can only imagine he might say there is no justice, there


62

1 cannot be justice because these girls were missing for 944

2 days. And not only were they affected, but as Dr. Love

3 eloquently told us, the entire family was affected, and their

4 siblings were deeply affected. There were three children

5 left behind.

6 There is a former governor of the state of

7 Minnesota, Al Quie -- wonderful man -- who used to ask

8 finalists for judicial positions -- when Judge Quie -- or

9 Governor Quie was making a judicial appointment -- this was

10 legendary in the legal community, and I was a young

11 prosecutor at the time when I heard this story. But he would

12 ask judicial candidates, "What is the difference between love

13 and justice?" And the first time I heard that question, I

14 thought, I would have no answer. What is the difference

15 between love and justice? Well, I've thought about that a

16 lot over the years, and I would guess that many people could

17 come up with brilliant answers to that. I've come to believe

18 that there is no difference between love and justice; that

19 you cannot have justice without love; that justice is some

20 combination of accountability and mercy and respect for

21 people and for the law. And I know this for sure, that

22 justice is not retribution. And I know this for sure, that

23 justice is peace and justice is love.

24 So what has that got to do with this? I have

25 considered carefully your motion for a departure, a


63

1 durational departure from the Minnesota Sentencing

2 Guidelines. You are not challenging sufficiency of the

3 evidence. As I've stated, you have acknowledged that there

4 is sufficient evidence. You've pled guilty to deprivation of

5 parental rights.

6 The issue in my mind is whether your acts are

7 distinguishable from those of the other two co-defendants in

8 this case, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki and Ms. Evavold. And I sat

9 through the trial of both of those persons. I had the

10 opportunity to listen to them, to watch them, to read the

11 presentence investigations concerning them. And it is -- it

12 has become apparent to me that looking at the motivation of

13 each of you is important in arriving at a just result.

14 Mr. Rucki's parental rights and Ms. Love's guardianship

15 rights were deprived. At the end of the day, he was without

16 his children for 944 days. But the law does recognize that

17 intent and motivation is something that we consider. We look

18 at that; we recognize this in the law.

19 And in the case of Ms. Grazzini-Rucki -- and I said

20 this at her sentencing -- she was motivated by vengeance.

21 She waged a personal vendetta against Mr. Rucki, one that

22 clouded her judgment and poisoned the minds of her children.

23 She instilled fear in the minds and hearts of these girls.

24 She manipulated them. She controlled them. She planted such

25 seeds of distrust and fear in the minds of these girls at


64

1 such a vulnerable age, and she set this in motion. The other

2 co-defendant was motivated by political ill will and distrust

3 of government and the courts.

4 I have come to know after 35 years in the justice

5 system, 13 as a prosecutor and 22 as a judge, that people

6 seldom act -- or react, I should say -- I think when we're in

7 a reactive mode, we seldom react in the moment the way we

8 think we might when we envision a scenario. I used to think

9 that a child victim of maltreatment or abuse would run

10 screaming from the room and tell the very first adult he or

11 she might encounter, and I've learned that simply doesn't --

12 that doesn't happen. I used to think that an adult victim of

13 a sexual assault would run screaming from the room and go

14 straight to the police, and that often doesn't happen. We

15 don't know how we will react until we find ourselves in

16 circumstances we never envisioned.

17 And that doesn't excuse our behavior. It doesn't

18 relieve us of our responsibility. But I do believe that in

19 this case, you started off thinking this was a two- to

20 three-day event, and somehow, lo and behold, 942 days went

21 by. I believe that your motivation was to provide sanctuary

22 to children that you thought were in need. You were misled

23 by the mother. You were misled by the go-between. And

24 indeed, you relied on the representations that the girls

25 made. And these were vulnerable children whose minds and


65

1 lives were made fragile by the manipulation and machination

2 of their mother.

3 You are the only two of those involved in this case

4 who pled guilty rather than subjecting the girls to yet

5 another trial. And I've thought about this: There are only

6 two people that have visited this courtroom who have shed

7 tears of sympathy and empathy and compassion for these

8 children, and those people are Mr. Rucki and Ms. Dahlen.

9 There is no question that you committed a crime,

10 but I find that your crime is distinguishable from that

11 committed by your co-defendants, and I find that substantial

12 grounds exist that mitigate your culpability.

13 The Sentencing Guidelines interestingly say that it

14 is a basis for a departure if substantial grounds exist that

15 tend to excuse or mitigate an offender's culpability. I

16 don't find that there are grounds that excuse your

17 culpability, but I find that there are substantial grounds

18 that mitigate it. And those grounds are your motivation at

19 the time you took those children in and your motivation as

20 you kept them. Well-intentioned people cause harm sometimes.

21 Good intentions are not enough. And you did cause harm to

22 the girls, to Mr. Rucki, to their siblings, and to the entire

23 family. And in crafting this sentence, I sincerely aim for

24 justice, incorporating accountability, a respect for the rule

25 of law, and a measure of compassion, mercy, and peace.


66

1 So with that, I'm sentencing you to serve 365 days

2 in the Dakota County Jail. I am staying the execution of

3 sentence and placing you on probation for a period of two

4 years to the Dakota County Community Corrections Department.

5 As part of your sentence, you will serve -- you

6 will each serve 31 days in the Dakota County Jail. That is

7 one day for each of the 31 months that the children were in

8 your care and 31 months in which their father was deprived of

9 his parental rights. You will receive work-release

10 privileges, and if you wish to -- I don't know if -- if you

11 wish to serve the jail time in your home county, you may do

12 that, but you will be responsible for the cost of care -- or

13 the costs of confinement. I'm not sure what that's called.

14 And we can discuss that in a moment.

15 You will pay a fine of $942, which is a dollar for

16 every day that the children were in your care, and an $80

17 surcharge.

18 You will, during the course of your sentence,

19 perform 31 days of Sentence to Service or its equivalent,

20 which if there is not Sentence to Service in your home

21 county -- I'm not sure if there is -- it will be an

22 equivalent of 31 days of community work service. And again,

23 that represents one day for every month the girls were out of

24 their father's care.

25 You will comply with all requirements of any state


67

1 or federal law regarding licensure and the reporting of

2 suspected child abuse or maltreatment.

3 You will pay restitution, and your restitution

4 obligation will be joint and several with your co-defendants

5 and will be paid to the Minnesota Crime Victims Reparation

6 Board, plus any ongoing expenses relating to therapy. And

7 the restitution amount is $10,000.

8 You will have no direct or indirect contacts with

9 Mr. Rucki or Dr. Love. You will have no contact with S.V.R.

10 and G.J.R. No minors, except those who are related to you,

11 may stay overnight at the ranch, so if there are minor nieces

12 or nephews, that will be acceptable, but no overnights with

13 minors at the ranch. And you will abide by any restraining

14 order or no-contact order that is issued.

15 There are -- so I believe that that's it. All

16 remaining counts are dismissed.

17 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, they are required to

18 provide a DNA sample.

19 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

20 You must provide a DNA sample, as required by

21 Minnesota law.

22 Let's talk about the jail term. I assume that we

23 would stagger. And maybe you'd like to speak with your

24 clients about that briefly?

25 MR. KEIL: I think that would probably be wise. If


68

1 I could just say one thing in terms of the overnights with

2 minors? I know this has come up before because they do

3 provide respite care. I would ask the Court to maybe

4 consider allowing Probation -- if they're notified of any

5 family wishing to seek respite care at that ranch, to get

6 approval from Probation so that they know, obviously, a child

7 will be staying overnight. I know there's a letter provided

8 from a past visitor to the ranch I know spoke highly of the

9 Dahlen ranch, and this has kind of come up before --

10 THE COURT: But for respite, don't they need to be

11 licensed as foster care providers? It's one thing to have

12 a -- when I think of respite care, it's licensed foster care

13 respite. It's a structured thing; it's not a pajama party.

14 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, if I may wear my civil hat

15 for the County right now? I do not want our Probation

16 Department being placed with the responsibility of deciding

17 whether these people can do respite care.

18 THE COURT: I'm prepared to say respite care only

19 if authorized by Social Services -- you know, as duly

20 licensed respite care providers through the county.

21 MR. KEIL: And I think probation would be

22 transferred, obviously --

23 THE COURT: Right.

24 MR. KEIL: -- up there as well.

25 GINA DAHLEN: Can I say something?


69

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 GINA DAHLEN: We have had families of, you know,

3 the kids that come to the ranch where they -- one particular

4 family where they wanted to stay -- you know, families in our

5 church where the kids are coming out to the ranch, and it's

6 30 miles, and the kids want to stay overnight as opposed to

7 driving back and forth. And if there's a way that, you know,

8 it's not, you know, respite, but it's just that, you know,

9 they're wanting to help, they're wanting to stay at the

10 ranch, and they're people that we know. And -- and I'm just

11 asking if we could get okay by Probation -- you know, if they

12 could get an okay for that to happen because it's been -- you

13 know, the parents want it, and they see the benefit for their

14 children.

15 MS. KEENA: Your Honor, the State would object.

16 That's just a slippery slope, and we're looking at a

17 probationary period for two years, and with a ranch that --

18 and if they do plan on continuing business at another

19 location, we don't know where that is.

20 THE COURT: Yeah, I'm going to allow respite care

21 only as licensed respite care providers through Social

22 Services. It has to be licensed.

23 Why don't you take a couple of minutes and talk

24 about structuring the confinement period.

25 (Off-the-record discussion.)
70

1 THE COURT: If you'd like to step out, feel free to

2 do that.

3 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, if I may say something.

4 THE COURT: Yes.

5 MR. WHITE: If they're going to utilize the local

6 county --

7 THE COURT: Is it Grant County?

8 MR. WHITE: -- jail for work release, the

9 difficulty may be to make arrangements with them. And I

10 don't know if we could have a time frame in terms of when

11 they're going to make this decision with Probation, but if it

12 could be coordinated with the local county and --

13 THE COURT: Well, what I would -- what I can do is

14 give a surrender date perhaps, you know, a month from today

15 for one of the Dahlens and two months from today for the

16 other and order that they either surrender themselves to the

17 Dakota County Jail or the Grant County Jail, and they can

18 make the arrangements.

19 MR. WHITE: Okay. And if I may, Your Honor,

20 unfortunately we're moving into the high period of time where

21 the ranch is the busiest. Given the fact it's a two-year

22 probation, could they stagger this a little later, if that's

23 possible?

24 THE COURT: Well, you come back with a proposal for

25 me.
71

1 MR. WHITE: Okay.

2 (Off-the-record discussion.)

3 THE COURT: Before we get into the surrender date,

4 I do want to clarify that the community work service, if the

5 community work -- you know, if STS is not available and

6 Defendants perform community work service, it cannot be at

7 their own non-profit. It must be through another

8 community-based organization.

9 All right, now --

10 MR. KEIL: For a report date, Your Honor --

11 THE COURT: Yes.

12 MR. KEIL: -- I don't know if it's possible to, you

13 know, request a month turn-out date. I think the

14 anticipation is in two weeks for both of them, but my concern

15 is just trying to arrange work release up in -- because it is

16 Grant County, but I believe they have to serve the time

17 actually in Douglas County.

18 THE COURT: All right.

19 MR. KEIL: So it's trying to ensure that work

20 release can be set up, so I think ideally they would like to

21 report in two weeks from today's date.

22 THE COURT: Both --

23 MR. KEIL: Yes.

24 THE COURT: -- parties?

25 MR. KEIL: Yes.


72

1 THE COURT: And serve their sentence

2 simultaneously?

3 MR. KEIL: Yes.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 MR. KEIL: I don't know if there's a way of

6 requesting maybe a month just to ensure there's no hiccups,

7 so we could come back to the court if there is hiccups and

8 maybe change that date.

9 THE COURT: Well, I can tell you that the

10 sheriff -- if they report to Dakota, the sheriff is not going

11 to just open up the door early. If I give them a report date

12 a month from today, I can certainly do that.

13 Why don't we do this: I don't have any objection

14 to a report date two weeks from today, a month from today,

15 and then if we need to review a surrender -- if we need to

16 review it, you can reach out and we can schedule a conference

17 call.

18 MR. KEIL: So we'd request two weeks from today's

19 date.

20 THE COURT: Mr. White?

21 MR. WHITE: That's fine, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: All right. So we will order -- I will

23 order a surrender date May 16 at 9:00 a.m. And that's when

24 our sheriff receives people is at 9:00 a.m. So May 16 at

25 9:00 a.m. If the Dahlens wish to serve their sentence in


73

1 Douglas County, they may do so, but again, they must make

2 arrangements for that with the Douglas County Sheriff, and

3 they will be responsible for the cost of confinement. And

4 you can discuss this with Probation, and just -- if you could

5 keep me in the loop, and if we need to revise this, then just

6 contact me and we can schedule a conference call.

7 MR. KEIL: We'll do that.

8 THE COURT: All right?

9 (Off-the-record discussion with the clerk.)

10 THE COURT: And the Sentence to Service -- I have

11 to pronounce -- I've given you the 31 days of Sentence to

12 Service or community work service equivalent. It must be

13 performed by March 1 of 2019. And if it is not conducted --

14 or is not performed by that day, the parties would surrender

15 to the jail at 9:00 a.m. on March 2 to serve the sentence.

16 All right?

17 So we will get you a copy of the sentencing orders,

18 and then if you could escort the Dahlens to the Community

19 Corrections Department. Thank you.

20 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 (Proceedings concluded.)

22

23

24

25
74

3 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

6 I, MONICA R. MORIARTY, do hereby certify that I am an

7 official court reporter for the First Judicial District, State of

8 Minnesota; that as such reporter, I stenographically reported the

9 proceedings held in the hearing of the afore-mentioned action;

10 that I thereafter transcribed the proceedings by means of

11 computer-aided transcription; and that the above and foregoing

12 transcript, consisting of the preceding 73 pages, constitutes a

13 full, true, and complete transcript of my stenographic notes of

14 the hearing to the best of my ability.

15

16

17 Dated: September 22, 2018 Monica R. Moriarty


______________________________
18 MONICA R. MORIARTY, RDR, CRR
Dakota County Judicial Center
19 1560 West Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
20 (651) 438-8045

21

22

23

24

25

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi