So a Star Tribune reporter called me a few minutes ago--here in my "undisclosed location" where (here comes the clue!) I just finished a meal of Korean fried chicken wings--and it appears the reporter is very interested in my "great escape" from being served with legal papers in council chambers, click here.
His focus is on whether I was "helped" somehow by a public official. In fact, he was REALLY REALLY REALLY focused on that minor, highly-specific, non-starter, non-issue while in the meantime my cherished Northside neighborhood is stacked to the gills with dangerous, predatory Level Three sex offenders (L3S0s) though a state statute is supposed to protect us and--good god--we've got one piece of crap Level Three who is going around suing movers and shakers in the neighborhood for (good heavens) talking about him.
Dodge Pete The Pedophile's service? Darn right I'll dodge his service. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DODGING LEGAL SERVICE no more than the law says you must open your front door to a Jehovah's witness. When frivolous litigants manage to waylay the forces of law and order into serving their worthless paper, dodging service is good citizenship.
Anybody--reporter or whoever--who claims they "overheard" or "eavesdropped" on a conversation in council chambers didn't hear EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID and--speaking as a trained army psych tech--the mind has a tendency to "reconstruct" conversations based on strong factual assertions made after the event. Did the reporter hear what he thought he heard? Huh, then why is it only coming out now if it's so gosh darn important? I guess we'll see how the article turns out.
And though I love a good sideshow....
...this is not about Johnny Northside, no matter how much I might love to 1.) link to fugitive songs on Youtube, 2.) revel in the adventure of it all, 3.) keep posting clues about my location on Facebook to assist process servers.
No, the real and pressing problems are as follows...
1.) Sick puppy Peter Rickmyer is filing what looks for all the world like repeated frivolous litigation, proving that Level Three sex offenders are NOT on a short leash but frolicking among decent people, weaving their little webs, out of control. If this is what we SEE Pete doing, what DON'T we see Pete doing? The state chooses to publish information about these sickos. Are we not supposed to SHARE that information? Did the state not intend the information to be said, spoken, published, brought up at the very moment the sickos are trying to create a social network uninformed about their true nature?
My fellow citizen, I tell you this: if you see a Level Three sicko chatting somebody up--you go the h*** right over there and tell that person the critical information they need to know, IN THAT MOMENT--before the smiling sicko perv gets invited to babysit somebody's children while you stood by, afraid to be (oh my word) rude. Level Three's are professional deviant social manipulators who depend on others to maintain decent social boundaries while they lay their little plots to violate decency. IF A LEVEL THREE IS TALKING TO SOMEBODY, THAT'S A GOOD TIME TO SHARE THE INFORMATION YOU KNOW FROM THE STATE WEBSITE. That's why the state puts it on the website, for cripe's sake!
2.) Level Three sex offenders have been concentrated in my neighborhood, despite a statute which is supposed to protect us.
3.) At least one state--the great State of Texas--publishes the specific address of dangerous sex offenders, not just block numbers. This protects citizens of Texas and, no, mobs do not form with pitches and torches. Residents of Minnesota deserve the same protection. There is no law against publishing these addresses even if the state chooses to only publish block numbers, so I intend to keep publishing the addresses and soliciting information through this blog and pushing for citizens to have the right to know where, specifically, the bad bad bad men live so they can warn their children.
Will the Star Tribune manage to get the "real issues" in this upcoming story? Or will this venerable paper give in to the view of the "alienated, social malcontent media" represented by the Mpls Mirror?
We shall see.