Thursday, May 27, 2010

Bizarre Bus Incident Involving Peter "Pete The Pedophile" Rickmyer Reveals Much--Why Does This Pedophile Have A Cell Phone?

DOC Mug Shot, Blog post by John Hoff

Peter Rickmyer a.k.a. "Pete The Pedophile" can't seem to walk down the street by himself without getting police involved, so heaven knows things will be so much worse if he tries to utilize mass transit.

Yet another incident--both typical and bizarre, because it's Spanky Pete, after all-- happened on April 13 and was documented in court paperwork filed by Peter Rickmyer as part of his recent "midnight manifesto" lawsuit against the world. This ill-conceived so-called "lawsuit" resulted in Peter being declared a frivolous litigant, but not before he made the front of City Pages.

In the rush to deal with other aspects of Peter and his worthless legal paper, this bus incident got shoved by the wayside and never reported here on Johnny Northside Dot Com. Well, I say, time to rectify the oversight...

I should point out that I actually heard another juicy version of this incident--as related by somebody who was riding the same bus--and I'd be happy to publish that first person account, even belatedly, if I can get permission. I think some folks have been hesitating due to Pete's litigious nature but now we might describe his nature as "formerly litigious." Let's face it, if Peter were a tomcat then he just got neutered.

So, I say, let's get all the Spanky Pete stories and legends out on the internet for everybody's edification, education, and (admittedly) amusement. Peter is, after all, a public figure and a fascinating deviant character, symbolic of the problems North Minneapolis endures because Level Three sex offenders have been concentrated here, despite a statute authored by State Legislator Linda Higgins which was supposed to protect our neighborhood from this very type of concentration.

In any case, here's the info. The incident happened on the Number 5 bus, April 13, at 1516 hours. (3:16 pm civilian time) The officers arrived at 1528 and managed to clear the incident by 1602, though the officers noted they needed "video B 1138 1445-1530 hours" for the date in question.

I'd like to see the video, too. I'd like to see who, if anybody, Spanky Pete was talking to before the incident took place. After all, there are some individuals--like minors--who Spanky Pete SHOULDN'T TALK TO AT ALL. So video that may show several random minutes of Spanky Pete on a bus right before some kind of WEIRD INCIDENT would be very interesting to me and, I think, interesting to Spanky Pete's keepers with the Department of Corrections...I mean, if they had adequate time and resources to keep track of all their dangerous clients, which clearly they don't.


During the bus incident in question, it appears Pete called the police because he felt he was being "harassed" on the bus. How was Pete being harassed? Well, somebody pointed out to somebody else that Pete is a Level Three sex offender. I mean, here you have the Department of Corrections putting Pete's sick puppy status on a website, for crying out loud, but it's apparently Pete's position that nobody should KNOW that information, or pass it on to anybody else who might be, for example, seated near him on a bus.

So Pete called the police. And Squad 263 had to show up and deal with Pete, meeting the bus at 26th and Broadway. In the police report, Pete lists his address as 2118 25th Ave. N. and his cell phone number as 651-523-9083. At this point, I want to break in with a question.

Peter is not supposed to have unsupervised access to the internet. So how does Peter have a CELL PHONE? I mean, I use an old school Nokia that's practically an antique, but even THAT thing can access the internet. So what's Pete using? And how is Pete's cell phone NOT capable of receiving internet signals? And how is that NOT a violation of Pete's probation conditions, which forbid him to be on the internet?

Before I even hit "publish" on this blog post, I'll be sending an email to Pete's probation officer and asking those questions. I won't get an FREAKING ANSWER, of course, because nobody at DOC actually seems to ANSWER my emails, but I will certainly bring it to their attention and make the record. And while we're at it, maybe DOC might take a look at the status of all the OTHER Level Three sex offenders they've dumped into my neighborhood, and whether THEY have cell phones capable of accessing the internet. I strongly suspect balls have been dropped.

The report also reveals Peter has a driver's license. The ID number is as follows: C103049934004. It might be interesting to see where else that turns up.

Here is the body of the report, exactly as written by officer D. Wallin Badge No. 4577. It is Case No. 10-3832.

MTPD Squad 263 responded to a radio call of a passenger being harassed aboard N/B Bus # 1138 Rt. 5 Dr. #64298. Squad met bus at 26th and Broadway and spoke to complainant. Victim advised officer he was a Level 3 sex offender. Victim stated he was onboard the Bus sitting on the left side of Bus across from the right rear exit door when another male passenger (mentioned party) approached him and advised other passengers he was a Level 3 sex offender.

Other passengers onboard laughed and the (mentioned party) did not threaten the victim. Victim advised Officer no one on the Bus threatened him but he was concerned about the (mentioned party) in the future may advise other passengers aboard the Bus that he is a sex offender. Victim feels revealing his criminal record may lead to him being assaulted in the future. Victim was unsure of the mentioned parties name but did know his address.

Victim further stated he was involved in a civil law suit against the (mentioned party).

At approximately 1600 hrs Officer spoke to (mentioned party) at his residents. He acknowledged he came into contact with the victim aboard the Bus. He further stated victim was suing his neighborhood community council and other numerous parties civilly. Mentioned party was advised.

(End of report)

On another minor note: the reputation of the No. 5 bus as the weirdest, most scary route in the whole city appears quite secure, for which we can all thank Spanky Pete.

Correction, September 9, 2011: This story contained a typo in which the word "question" should have been "questions." The typo has been corrected.


Anonymous said...

John are you in love here because it sure seems like it.

infatuation 222 up, 33 down
buy infatuation mugs, tshirts and magnetsAll-encompassing, gut-wrenching, soul-draining activity that only requires the active involvement of one individual: the obsessor. A second individual is required for the peripheral need of providing the obsessor with an object of needless, unappreciated, possibly unwanted, often unwarranted affection. The second invididual may or may not be aware of his/her peripheral involvement, and may or may not be willing to be peripherally involved: the object's awareness and/or willingness of being an object of desire is of no consequence to the obsessor.
The innocent girl lost her sensibility due to her infatuation with the nice

Johnny Northside said...

If I'm in love, clearly I'm not very faithful. Just ask Friedman's shoe store, Merwin's Liquor, TJ Waconia, and slumlord Keith Reitman, to name but a few.

Don't mistake PROLIFIC for OBSESSED. I'm giving readers what they demand and, hey, they want to know what's up with the Level Three sex offenders.

Johnny Northside said...

I also heard some interesting tidbits about Pete The Pedophile and his frequent visits to the office of Bob Miller of NRP.

Reportedly, when Pete comes in looking to meet with Bob Miller he is always unannounced and never makes an appointment. When told Bob is not in or in a scheduled meeting Pete sits in the reception area sometimes for hours waiting for Bob to come in or be available.

It is reportedly pathetic. Pete gets very belligerent and accusing. He even asks for food if someone brought in a cake or pie. Staff there probably loathe Pete but what can they do? It is a public office and they really can't boot him. Although now that Pete's lawsuit was dismissed and he was sanctioned, perhaps he will be admonished as the fool ass creepy old goat he actually is, and staff will feel freer to be rude to him when he just drops by unannounced.

Pete probably won't be acting like some important peacock anymore.

Anonymous said...

Here's what that license number shows for public information:

Driver License Search Results 5/27/2010 5:47:10 PM

DL Number - C103049934004
Class - D
Type - 1
Class D Status - VALID
Commercial Status - N / A
Endorsements - NONE
DL Issued - 09/17/2009
DL Expiration - 02/04/2014

la_vie_en_rose said...

Not to declare my love for the guy, but 1.) you can still buy cell phones that can't access the web (my mother just bought one), and 2.) you still have to pay for web access if you have a capable phone, and unless he has a great plan, web minutes don't usually come cheap. I would imagine he can have a cell phone as long as he keeps access off it, but whether or not that's actually being forced is the more important issue.

Johnny Northside said...

Any violations listed? Or none? Anything good? I found nothing on the license, nothing on the phone.

To La Vie En Rose: yes, whether the phone is internet capable and whether anybody is checking up to make sure it's not used that way...that IS the issue. I don't KNOW what is actually happening, I'm merely expressing my worry and lack of faith in the supervision these guys are getting.

la_vie_en_rose said...

Eh, that seems to be the status quo, regardless of how thorough a state's website is. There's a surprising lack of control on some (not all) offenders, as if the officials don't give a damn as long as they're getting their paycheck.

You know, I sort of sympathize with him. Getting branded with the sex offender label is living a real life version of The Scarlet Letter which is tough for anyone. Also, people who commit these crimes were generally molested or whatnot as a child. However, I say "sort of" because it would have been one thing if he'd done something once and then later regretted it, but he's apparently done things repeatedly. If he didn't want people to point fingers when he comes into a room (or in this case, a bus), then he should have thought before getting in trouble in the first place. The one thing our society does not like is people who hurt or corrupt children. That shouldn't be news to anyone.

Johnny Northside! said...

This blog has refrained from publishing a comment which claims to know Pete's history in detail, back to the 1970s, and is generally critical of Pete.

If the author of the blog post is indeed interested in "putting together Pete's history," I'm interested in publishing that. Stay in touch.