Friday, April 23, 2010

Peter "Pete The Pedophile" Rickmyer Versus City of Minneapolis, JACC At April 20 Hearing...It Did Not Go Well For "Spanky Pete"

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

The City Pages put the story all over its front page about Peter "Pete The Pedophile" Rickmyer's lawsuit against the world, including Johnny Northside blog, the Commander of the Fourth Precinct, the Jordan Area Community Council. But an actual hearing on this bizarre matter happened a couple days ago, and who has the story? This blog, naturally.

Well, kind of. I am out on the road trucking--Mansfield, Ohio at this moment--and I was told the story over a cell phone while I inhaled a Caeser salad at a "Big Boy" restaurant in Clio, Michigan. I hope I managed to remember most of the tawdry tale without taking notes. But, hey, I'm all you've got. The whole City of Minneapolis got the set up for the story. So how is it going down? Well, let me tell you...

There were a lot of defendants and their attorneys gathered in the room, when a man walked in wearing a "charcoal" color suit, a striped tie and, incredibly, a "Dick Tracy" hat, (a fedora, I assume) pure white in color. One of the defendants whispered something like, "Well, he has a white hat. Must be a good guy."

The oddly-dressed individual turned around, and it was predator pedophile "Spanky" Pete Rickmyer, apparently dressed up in some kind of imitation of a lawyer which (quite accidentally) bordered on parody.

Shudder. Like a demonic creature made out of Satanic Playdough, Pete's ever-changing appearance had morphed yet again. Instead of being crusty-looking with a slight beard, he now sported a clean-shaven appearance. Yes, even his HEAD like Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers. Double shudder.

You know what Johnny Northside says about that...

Department of Corrections? Peter needs a new mugshot. Again. Are you going to hear it from me, or will folks in the Jordan Neighborhood have to bombard you with emails?

Behind Pete there was an entourage of spectators, consisting of individuals from the probation office and some folks from the Law Library in the upstairs of the Hennepin County Government Building; where Spanky Pete spends so much of his time instead of looking for a job while (reportedly) drawing four forms of public assistance. The entourage was so big and moved in such unison there was an actual small rush of air. The woman from the Mpls Mirror was there. If other media were present, they don't appear to have filed stories.

Oh, wait, Mpls Mirror hasn't filed a story yet, either. I wasn't even THERE and yet I manage to get a story up faster than the Mpls Mirror.


The Judge entered. The first thing the judge did was to ask Peter Rickmyer about a letter sent by yours truly, John Hoff a.k.a. "Johnny Northside." Oh, actually, I guess I could link to the document as a PDF.

OK, here you go, click here.

Hearing mention of John Hoff, the lady from the Mpls Mirror leaned forward, eagerly, hoping for some dirt. I think she was probably disappointed.

My letter basically said Peter Rickmyer had not managed to serve me, therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over me. It's funny how one can write to a court and say this stuff--indeed, one could have an attorney "appear specially" to deal with the matter of a lack of jurisdiction--without being subject to the court's jurisdiction. I picked up some useful stuff in law school. One day, soon, I hope to make more use of this stuff besides just defending MYSELF.

Normally, when involved in a lawsuit, correspondence should be cc'd all around. But, standing on my rights as an unserved party, I didn't bother sending a copy to Rickmyer...though I sent everybody else a copy. The letter also mentioned I had not defamed Peter Rickmyer, and the man is a Level Three sex offender, therefore a public figure.

It's great the Court led with this inquiry about whether Peter Rickmyer had received a copy of the letter. Right away, Pete was off his game...not that he had much game in the first place, even if he was trying to be costumed for the role. I tell you, people think being a lawyer is just talking with words...kind of like flying an airplane is just wearing the Captain hat and taking hold of the controls.

Peter launched into a long, angry rant about how yours truly had been dodging service...had been in the City Council Chambers for two hours, with a process server right outside, but had managed to get away through a "special door" not available to members of the just wasn't fair!

So, the court clarified, John Hoff has NOT been served.

No. No Your Honor. (Pouty face)

In response to questions by the Judge, Peter began to outline the rest of his case. This went on for a very long time, with Peter going into an extended tangential rant. From time to time, he would "make lawyer noises" and ask if he could approach the bench, then Pete would bring up a document. The judge finally told Rickmyer to just bring up all the documents he had at once, but Rickmyer didn't exactly follow the instructions of the court.

In not-so-gripping detail, Peter outlined the alleged conspiracy to drive him from the community. But since this was a hearing on whether the motion should be dismissed and Rule 9 sanctions leveled, the judge kept trying to direct Peter back to this line of inquiry. Finally, the judge just asked, "Explain why I should NOT give you sanctions?"

When Pete answered, it was back to the alleged conspiracy. At some point, Peter said something about having "a disability" and brought a document up to the judge. The judge mentioned Rickmyer having a case before the judge some years ago, and there had been no claim of a disability at that time.

At this mention of a previous case before the judge, the ears of several defendants got all pointy. A previous case? With the same judge? About WHAT? Based on things Peter Rickmyer was telling the judge, it may have concerned the "Golden Chicken" business at 2402 Penn Ave. N., which Pete once helped manage...until he spanked two minors for sexual gratification, and this was AFTER low-life Rickmyer was released from the sexual deviant holding tank at Moose Lake.

However, given the apparent date of the court case, it seemed like the case may NOT have concerned the incident with the minors, but some other aspect of what some of us call "The Chicken Shack."

(You've heard of the "Love Shack?" Love had nothing to do with this. This was a Chicken Shack)

So that was a tantalizing clue into the back story of Spanky Pete. At this point, a discussion took place about how many court cases Peter had filed in how many years, and how many he had actually won. Something came up about a case involving Pizza Hut.

What was THAT about, we wondered? Is Spanky Pete the only guy in North Minneapolis who can get pizza delivered?

There was some slight disagreement about the number of cases and the number of years, but the conclusion was apparent: Spanky Pete's batting average is pretty lousy.

Pete kept gesturing toward some of the JACC defendants, saying how they had caused him to be "removed from the community" for a number of days. (Click here for video of the actual removal) The judge inquired whether Peter had been "removed" because of a parole violation.

Then (in the words of my source) Peter "went to a dark place." Once again, he seemed to morph, to shape-shift. Suddenly Peter was no longer the wannabe lawyer, trying to swim in water way over his newly-shaven head. Instead, Pete manifested in his sex offender persona, talking about his little Level Three legalities in a way that was quite adept and familiar. Pete said a computer had been removed from his home as a probation violation, but the computer wasn't hooked to the how was that FAIR?

Pete said the probation authorities had told him to submit to certain tests, but Pete hadn't done it fast enough. Pete pouted about this. He was doing the tests, so why did they have to move upon him so quickly? It wasn't fair!

The judge asked about whether Peter had had a "hearing" in regard to the removal from the community, the alleged probation violation. Pete agreed there had been a hearing.

At some point, Pete started talking about his former supervising agent, Bobbie Chevalier-Jones. According to Pete, Chevalier-Jones had taken a "leave of absence" because she felt "threatened" over having her picture published on the internet. As Pete said these things, there was a flurry of activity among the probation officers--whispering and shuffling papers. The word I have is though Chevalier-Jones is no longer (screwing up) supervising Spanky Pete, she is still supervising cases. Just not Spanky Pete's case, thank god.

At one point, Pete was forced to admit he was "lost in (his) own argument." It was like watching a train wreck where the cars on the train are somebody's thoughts.

Peter was finally told he was done and it was the other side's turn. The first thing the lawyer for JACC did was to point out Peter had never actually argued AGAINST the Rule 9 motion, either verbally or in writing. Could it be everybody--even Spanky Pete himself--agreed Pete should not be allowed to file lawsuits all by himself? You have to wonder.

The lawyer for JACC knew his case was overwhelmingly strong against a plaintiff who was overwhelmingly weak. In such a circumstance, best to save the time of the court. The JACC lawyer hit a few points and quickly rested on his written briefs. (For the record, so does "Johnny Northside," even though I haven't been served)

At one point, Peter tried to interrupt and say something. Like talking to an unruly child, the judge told Peter to sit down and "sit still."

Next was the lawyer for the City, defending the police officers Pete was suing. The City argued immunity in this matter. The argument was tight, flawless and not terribly exciting. Yeah, I rest on that argument, too.

The judge concluded by saying he'd get an order out. The judge didn't say when that would be, so it could be as long as ninety days. Everybody left and, within a few days...

Spanky Pete was mailing around more legal paper. He will apparently continue mailing his bizarre papery rants, requiring expensive responses from attorneys...until there is an order to compel him to stop.


Anonymous said...

I must have missed it. Where is the story?

M. Clinton said...

What cute dogs!

JNS Reader said...

Please tell me someone got a picture of Spanky Pete's new look. Because if they did, I know I'll see it here. Fingers crossed!

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

JNS Readers,

A total of five comments from three different posts were just deleted due to the names of the commenters being sexual vulgarities. This is the equivalent of Bart Simpson calling Moe's Tavern, and is SO seventh grade. Grow up, trolls.

Future comments of this nature will be deleted and their content will not be published in any way. If there are other such comments that John has missed, please bring them to the attention of the blog and they will be removed.

MeganG. said...

@JNSReader: from what I hear, no picture of Spanky's new look, sadly, I was hopeful and then disappointed as well.

Perhaps there will be a next time, although from hearing how it went, that is doubtful as well.

Tom Cleland said...

New documentary explores impact of sex offender laws

“The big lie is that most of the people who we have in prison for sex crime would do it again if we let them out.”

A probation program that works

“Nationally, 13 percent of sex offenders are known to reoffend.”

MeganG. said...

Hey Tom - way to go sticking up for the sex offenders!

How many of 'em you got living over there in Golden Valley? Zero? Oh, come move over here, there are lots to stick up for. And when you get tired of that, you can stick up for the murderous thugs who run the streets.

Anonymous said...


Why don't you address the specifics of Tom's points instead of saying "GRRRRR, sex offender bad, GRRRRRR".

It is obvious that your knowledge of this very complicated issue is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Johnny Northside! said...

Wow, Tom, that's great. So it sounds like you'd be happy to have them bunched up in Golden Valley instead of MY neighborhood.

Also, given the number of sex offenders in my neighborhood, even with YOUR stats (which I doubt) here is the inevitable conclusion: some of them will reoffend. In my neighborhood.

Also, I doubt those stats take into effect the cluster situation we have in North Minneapolis.

Anonymous said...

Tom Cleland quotes:
“Nationally, 13 percent of sex offenders are known to reoffend.”

dennis plante responds:
Well, let's pick this generalized statement apart for a moment and see what exactly we can deduce from it.

Well, it appears that 13% of sex offenders in genral are reincarcerated for sex offenses.

However, and I pointed this out on E democracy not too long ago -

Another perspective on the problem is offered by Anna Salter, one of the foremost experts on sex offenders in the country. She writes the following in her popular book Predators.

Read it carefully then YOU tell ME what the likelihood of reoffense is.

"The dry research figures only confirm what I have seen over and over in this field: there are a lot of sexual offenses out there and the people who commit them don't get caught very often. When an offender is caught and has a thorough evaluation with a polygraph backup, he will reveal dozens, sometimes hundreds of offenses he was never apprehended for.

In an unpublished study by Pamela Van Wyk, 26 offenders in her incarcerated treatment program entered the program admitting an average of 3 victims each. Faced with a polygraph and the necessity of passing it to stay in the treatment program, the next group of 23 men revealed an average of 175 victims each."

With that said, it really doesn't make anyone feel any safer to know that these guys are only being caught for reoffending 13% of the time.

And quite honestly Tom, you probably know better. You're a bright guy it appears. Which begs me to ask the question - why WOULD you even bother making a statement like that?

Anonymous said...

So, you have to ask yourself Tom. Because it appears you have a social conscience. Is it indeed in society's best interests to "pack" L3SO's in NOMI. A neighborhood that not only experiences its fair-share of social problems to begin with, but also has one of the HIGHEST percentages of defenseless children of ANY neighborhood in Minneapolis? Or, are you of the belief that the "rights" of L3SOs outweigh the rights of children?

Because you see, at the end of the day, you don't "cure" someone of thier predisposition to sexaully offend others. At best, when you set them free, you monitor their behaviour as closely as possible. And hopefully, you place them in an environment where they are least likely to act on their urges.

Which neighborhood is better suited for that task Tom? NOMI, that has one of the highest incidences of single-parent households, or say Edina, or Golden valley, that are comprised of much more highly educated and in most cases heads of households that are better equipped with providing the parenting skills necessary to insure the safety of their children?

Listen before you speak said...

Did anyone actually listen to the, "No Brother of Mine", broadcast (posted by Tom Cleland) before they posted comments? Didn't think so. How about you listen, and then comment. It’s a worthwhile program to listen to.

Dennis Plante: I'm getting kinda tired of hearing about this UNPUBLISHED study by Pamela Van Wyk. She is a nobody. She read a few reports and compiled the numbers she wants people to hear, and wrote a report. The group she wrote it for, The Leadership Council, is a right-wing organization and she clearly tweaked the numbers for that groups benefit. If you want to quote statistics, please find valid articles that have been published in peer reviewed, legitimate professional journals, and are credible. Anyone can pull numbers out of their butt and write a report as Pamela Van Wyk did. Pamela’s report is about as worthless as, well, anything Don Allen writes. I’m sure you can relate to that.

Anonymous said...

To the contrary, Dr. Anna Salter is very well received AND respected as a leader within the sexual predator treatment community, and SHE was the one using Pamela Van Wyk's "cooked numbers" (as you have inferred) in her book.

Consider yourself one of the lucky ones, as you obviously were never sexually molested or assaulted.

Your obvious lack of understanding on the topic speaks volumes...

Anonymous said...

Dennis Plante Responds:
Now if you want to say that "13 percent are convicted and reincarcerated for additional offenses AFTER their prior offense", I can live with that. And it points-out a larger problem with the "studies" that allow this type of garbage to become prevelant in the discussions about sex offenders.

Because, it is not indicative of the risk you place society in by placing these guys back on the street. ESPECIALLY in neighborhoods that have high percentages of children that are not well-supervised to begin with.

As for the handy links Tom provided. I read them PRIOR to posting and learned nothing that changes my mind.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and here's Dr Salters bio. Is her opinion unaccepted in clinical circles as well?

Dr. Salter received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard University and obtained a Masters Degree in Child Study from Tufts. She was a Teaching Fellow at both Universities.

Dr. Salter has lived in Madison Wisconsin since 1996 and consults half time to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. In addition, she lectures and consults on sex offenders and victims throughout the United States and abroad. She has keynoted conferences on sexual abuse in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland and England. In all, she has conducted trainings in 45 states and 8 countries. Dr. Salter also evaluates sex offenders for civil commitment proceedings and other purposes. She testifies as an expert witness in sexual abuse civil and criminal cases.

Before moving to Madison, Dr. Salter was on the faculty of Dartmouth Medical School in Lebanon, New Hampshire in the Departments of Psychiatry and Maternal and Child Health. While there, she was Director of Psycho-social Training for the Pediatric Residency Program, Director of Child Psychiatry Consultation to the Pediatric Ward, Co-Director of the Parenting Clinic, Assistant Director of the Children-at-Risk Program and Director of the Parents in Distress Program. She also won the Saul Blatman Teaching Award in the Department of Pediatrics and Maternal and Child Health.

Dr. Salter is the 1997 winner of the Significant Achievement Award from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

She is the author of three nonfiction books:

Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children. (2003) New York: Basic Books

Transforming Trauma: A Guide to Understanding and Treating Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse. (1995), Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications

Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims: A Practical Guide. (1988) Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.

In addition she has produced two educational video tapes:

Truth, Lies and Sex Offenders

Sadistic Offenders: How They Think, What They Do

Dr. Salter has also published four forensic mysteries:

Shiny Water

Fault Lines

White Lies

Prison Blues

Prison Blues has been nominated for a 2003 Edgar Allan Poe Award in the category of Best Original Paperback.

Anonymous said...

Better yet, let's go way to the left and adopt a "three-strikes" rule for sex offenders as well.

Maybe you're right, maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt until they've committed at least 3 offenses for which they've been arrested, tried and convicted of.....

Anonymous said...

I don't get the logic behind being alarmed about L3SO's being a risk to kids in NoMi. I say this with some sarcasm but, there is also some truth to this as well when I say that its the KIDS that are the risk to the L3SO's because, most NoMi kids are packing heat! And if one kid is not armed, there is likely another youth close by that IS armed. Take Remar Smith for example. Yeah he is over 18 now but, lots of people know he had guns before he was 18.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous12:38 says we have more to worry about with children packing heat.I propose that we have a kiddie hit squad take out the chomos.... just sayin'

Johnny Northside said...

Unfortunately, these deviant bastards are smart enough not to mess with kids who can defend themselves like that.

la_vie_en_rose said...

Oh, how I miss Frisch's Big Boy!

It's not surprising his lawsuit didn't go well. If all it amounted to was whining...well, judges don't like it when you waste their time.

That said, did anyone watch the news last night (KARE11, I think is what I was watching)? There was a story about a L3SO trying to move to Chaska, but apparently, he didn't make it (the town had a meeting about L3SOs, in any case). The reporter said that his whereabouts are "homeless somewhere in Minneapolis". Who wants to bet that he ends up in this neighborhood?

MeganG. said...

Who wants to bet he ends up renting from Keith "1564" Reitman?!?!

la_vie_en_rose said...

Nice, Megan. If you think that Keith rents only to the scummiest of the scum, then what must you think of my family?

Besides, isn't there some suburbanite who's housing all of these L3SOs?

MeganG. said...

Rose, I don't think anything of you and your family. I don't judge someone based on their landlord. I judge them on their character and their behavior.

Besides, I'm sure you and I both agree that Keith "1564" Reitman is definitely not the best but definitely not the worst landlord out here in NoMi-land.

Johnny Northside! said...

I'd sure love to know more of the details about a certain prominent slumlord's all-too-cozy and familiar relationship with Pete The Pedophile.

Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Is this the same Keith Reitman that is on the JACC?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Anon @ April 27, 2010 11:58 PM, sadly, the same Keith Reitman who got paid from a mortgage fraud deal at 1564 Hillside is the same one who sits on the neighborhood board where the fraud happened.