Saturday, February 20, 2010

"Pete The Pedophile" (NOT Pictured Below) Files Purported Lawsuit Document Against, Well, Everybody...

Photo by Kip Browne, blog post by John Hoff

Click here for a PDF of Pete The Pedophile's incredible, rambling, gibberish-filled 96-page so-called lawsuit against Johnny Northside and, well, a whole lot of other people.

In the photo above I--John Hoff a.k.a. Johnny Northside--was caught on camera doing my notorious facial and verbal imitation of "Pete The Pedophile." I'm pointing to the logo on my shirt which says "Trained By Pete's Hardwood." What can I say? Jagermeister mixed with green tea and ginger ale is more intoxicating than it tastes.

So let's talk about "Pete The Pedophile," shall we? Sigh. Heavy sigh...

Pete The Pedophile was already a notorious person before his gritty star quality was discovered by Johnny Northside Dot Com, since Pete is a Level Three Sex Offender, a category considered dangerous and likely to reoffend. Level Three Sex offenders have their picture on a state website, along with biographical info and some limited address data, like the block where they live. Their actions are monitored and they are greatly restricted in many aspects of their daily least in theory.

Common sense would argue somebody in such a highly-publicized, pariah-like social status would do best to just keep their head down and avoid giving offense to the world by, for example, showing up at a JACC meeting and talking about how children in North Minneapolis have PTSD-like symptoms. Because, really, if there's anything that gives children PTSD, it's a Level Three Sex Offender like Peter Rickmyer, who is also known as Peter Richard Stephenson. By deliberate, calculated political and administrative design, Level Three sex offenders are supposed to have a short leash in society. They are not supposed to be able to stretch their leash far, far into the world or get off that leash and frolic around.

But Pete Rickmyer, who is registered under the name Peter Richard Stephenson, (go figure!) doesn't appear to accept his short leash or the severe-yet-sensible restrictions placed upon his rancid, sexually-deviant, dirty-old-man hide. Indeed, Pete seems to be engaged in a deliberate, calculated process of struggling to carve out as much leeway and latitude as he can get away with, to the point of repeatedly trying to pass himself off as some kind of involved, concerned, decent Northside citizen while sticking his nose into JACC meetings, into a court hearing on mortgage fraud, and--when his actions are discussed, publicized, and (oh yes) mocked Peter flies into a tizzy, filing gibberish-filled legal manifestos with the court system.

Yes, Peter may have the "right" to show up at public functions--until his overworked zoo handlers tell him otherwise and reel him in, which it appears has happened a few times, click here for some really fun video--but does Peter have a "right" not to have his actions questioned in public? Does he have a "right" not to have his removal from a court room publicized in a grassroots media entity?

Somehow, this Level Three Sex offender manages to put sheriff's deputies at his service, serving his worthless paper. It is blasphemy and an outrage: armed, trained, socially valuable sheriff's deputies at the beck and call of a Level Three Sex Offender serving his frivolous legal paper! Much is said in the media about sex offenders, how dangerous they are, their supposed restrictions. Here in the 55411 zip code where we are SATURATED with sex offenders more than any other place in Minnesota, I think we have to ask, "Um, what restrictions? What restrictions would those be?"

Somebody needs to talk to Pete's keeper, Bobbi Chevalier-Jones, and find out how Pete has managed to carve out this unacceptable latitude beneath her very nose.

Just the day before yesterday, Vice Chairman Kip Browne was served with the purported lawsuit document, as well as attorney David Schooler, while they waited outside a courtroom for a hearing on "Old versus New Majority" JACC issues. Other people named in the suit include myself, this blog as a purported corporation (it's not) (yet), the commander of the Fourth Precinct Mike Martin, numerous citizens involved in JACC, and a couple police officers who were--judging by the alleged lawsuit document--just not as nice to Pete The Pedophile as he expected.

(I insist on calling the 96-page manifesto a "purported" or "alleged" lawsuit because I believe it fails to state a claim. It is more along the lines of a long, rambling complaint wrongly categorized as a lawsuit)

Much more will be said about Pete the Pedophile and his (quote fingers) "lawsuit," but here's what I have to say for now: this problem is much bigger than Peter Rickmyer a.k.a. Peter Richard Stephenson, the Chicken Shack Spanky Man. There has been one other instance documented on this blog of a North Minneapolis sex offender going beyond his allotted limits. And here we are saturated with (at last count) 17 of these deviants packed into our long-suffering neighborhood, a neighborhood that--despite deep and rapid demographic changes happening lately--is still filled with the poor and vulnerable.

The State of Minnesota, in its infinite wisdom, publicizes only the general address by block number of these deviants. And, for the deviants who scrupulously stay within their allotted boundaries, this may be good enough. Let them work their menial jobs, I say, and take comfort in the love of their mothers--who will probably defend them even if the rest of the world may revile them.

But I am concerned about my neighborhood and our saturation with sex offenders. We have disproportionately shouldered this burden for too long. It is time for North Minneapolis to have a moratorium on sex offenders locating here, and then the numbers should be dialed back to zero. ZERO.

Peter Rickmyer has fired the first salvo in this conflict: North Minneapolis sex offender reserve force versus neighborhood revitalizers and decent North Minneapolis citizens. I accept this challenge and I will be happy to fire multiple salvos in return, though let the record show it was Hillside Chronicles which first took up the fight in the blogosphere, click here. Hillside Chronicles told me a moment ago that Peter was given multiple "free passes" on the b.s. he filed with the neighborhood organization, his purported "grievances" and so forth.

But a lawsuit...well, that's war. Hillside Chronicles told me this "shot across the bow" will be answered with legal "shock and awe."

I say if we want North Minneapolis to become something better--something approaching urban utopia--then we need to deal with this criminal dumping ground in our midst which has been endured too long, and now must end. We need to tackle the sex-offender-holding-tank problem head on, instead of not talking about it for fear of negatively branding our neighborhood. The problem is already here. The negative branding is already here. We need to tackle this problem and work for the day when our neighborhood has no more sex offenders than any other neighborhood.

And I think that starts by using the incredible power of grass roots blogger media against this "North Minneapolis sex offender reserve force."

If we work hard for a day we can find ourselves with zero Level Three sex offenders, or less than most neighborhoods, then that is gravy. But for now, we are saturated and must, at a minimum, get a moratorium. Peter's so-called lawsuit is a wake up call. But the reverberations of his outrageous legal paper will echo far beyond his small, desperate, pathetic life.

CORRECTION, SEPTEMBER 9, 2011: The surname "Stephenson" was incorrectly spelled "Stephanson" in one of the paragraphs above.


Hillside Chronicles said...


Michael Spivak said...

Ooh! This is why we have Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02 and 12.02(e)!

Anonymous said...

I believe we have 5 in upper Willard Homewood/Hay. We're starting a small discussion group about level 3 offenders in the next week or two to decide what our community can do and go from there... I encourage other neighborhoods to do the same - we should all speak up at the same time.

veg*nation said...

apropros of nothing, can a lawsuit be dismissed on the grounds of the plaintiff being a mental defective?
wondering in willard-homewood

Johnny Northside said...

Michael Spivak, I know you're busy studying for the bar exam and it effects your mental state to some degree, but please don't be obscure. Explain further.

la_vie_en_rose said...

If I have this right, 11.02 states:

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

a.) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

b.) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

c.) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

d.) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

12.02(e) is about "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Mr. Sex Offender doesn't have a leg to stand on (obviously).

Johnny Northside said...

Article on Pete.