Cell phone photo by Megan Goodmundson, blog post by John HoffRegular readers of this blog who run into me in the real world are usually surprised to hear former JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore’s defamation lawsuit against this blog is still in existence. Having not heard about it for a while, they figure it must have gone away, died, or been dismissed. Click here for an article that summarizes the issues wonderfully.
In fact, the lawsuit has dragged on and is currently on the Hennepin County trial court calendar for Thursday March 3, at 9:30 AM, the court of Judge Denise Reilly, Room 655C. The trial may go beyond March 3 to Friday, March 4. It’s not currently scheduled for the following Monday but, well, sometimes things take longer than planned and we have to consider the lessons of history and other trials involving issues in the Jordan Neighborhood.
Attempts to obtain another continuance on the basis of being tied up doing much more important things did not meet with success at a pretrial hearing on Thursday, February 10, but the trial date of March 3...
...appears to have been kindly picked by Her Honor to avoid interfering with my work schedule, so that was helpful and I’m grateful for that.
With Don Allen of IBNN now dropped as a co-defendant due to settling out of court, it appears the case is now captioned Jerry Moore vs. John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside, which is a fine title for the history books and possibly case law.
The February 10 hearing was attended by Jill Clark and Jerry Moore. I attended with my new lawyer, Paul Godfread, who was introduced to me through a media law project at Harvard, click here for a link to their website describing my case as a threat to free speech.
Godfread--who is not a graduate of Harvard, but part of their media law network--normally handles intellectual property law cases (stuff about copyrights, for example) but he has a passion for the First Amendment. He is, quite possibly, one of the tallest lawyers practicing in Hennepin County and (for those readers familiar with North Minneapolis personalities) bears a physical and personality resemblance to “shoe patrol hero” Peter Teachout, who is now an officer in the United States Army.
Also present in court was Don Allen of IBNN. At a hearing on Monday, in which Don Allen sat on the defendant’s side of the table long enough to say he’d been dismissed from the lawsuit, Allen announced he was filing a “harassment restraining order” against me. Not long after that, he apparently articulated the same threat to Sheila Regan at Twin Cities Daily Planet, click here and read the “sidebar story” to the article.
However—and this is so often the case with anything Don Allen says—there has been no sign of any harassment or restraining order filed against me or this blog. Rather than being stalked or harassed, Allen is simply unhappy about First Amendment public discourse: articles on various blogs (and now the Star Tribune) seriously questioning the wisdom of giving him $15,000 of scarce public schools tax dollars to produce commercials for the Minneapolis Public School system which, one can’t help but worry, may be not much better than his “talking baby” video posted on YouTube before it disappeared recently.
Also present in court was Terry Yzaguirre of the Mpls Mirror and notorious Level Three sex offender Peter “Spanky Pete” Rickmyer, who also attempted to sue the Johnny Northside blog and was declared a frivolous litigant, unable to file lawsuits pro se. In the corridor outside of court, Rickmyer was overheard speaking to Jill Clark about something “Puh-Puh-Peggy” told him to relate.
Clark is known to have a paralegal named Peggy. Rickmyer was also observed to fiddle with what appeared to be a cell phone during court proceedings.
Jordan Neighborhood super citizen Megan Goodmundson was also present in the court room.
With little time to prepare for the big show, Godfread has jumped into trial preparations with both feet.
Readers and media are urged to come one, come all to watch the live show:
THE BLOGOSPHERE ON TRIAL! (Click here for dramatic musical effects)
$$$
28 comments:
March 3rd 2011 a date which will live in infamy. I will be there incognito at the hearing. I haven't seen Pete in years and it is high time i reintroduced myself to him. It seems Mark,his brother, was in the Hennepin County Jail for lurking recently in the last week so i notice he hasn't changed either. It's the Munsters and ,believe it or not,there is a Marilyn type in the family. I always felt sorry for her.
Be advised that if Pete shows up we will be contacting his probation officer immediately and, believe me, we have him on speed dial.
On another note...
The time of the trial should be 9:30 AM not PM.
Duh.
I have made the correction in the text accordingly. Thanks to Jeff (the Hawthorne Hawkman) for catching that and drawing it to my attention. Good job, Jeff, ripping up the Pamiko issue on North By Northside.
Oh, I should make clear that I'm not positive whether "probation officer" is the correct term.
So, you know, Pete's zookeeper.
Assuming what you said to be true (I have no way to know) what is Mark's last name?
I got news for ya John, Will and his supervisor (and all the probation/parole, DOC, & MPD) think you are a chronic lunatic. They are well aware of you and are documenting all of your complaints and harassment.
Will was more than happy to investigate your complaint against Pete and record it as unfounded harassment. While Pete was told to stay away from the trial it was for his benefit, not yours.
Funny that you are so concerned about having him around, what are you afraid of?
Any way that a guy who's interested in the law could get a copy of the complaint filed against you? I'm curious to see how bad (or good, but most likely bad) the legal argument is.
Oh, now the trolls are pretending to be DOC.
Funny.
We have DOC on speed dial, emails have circulated from DOC, and when it comes to Pete Rickmyer they are (I think it's fair to say) incredibly frustrated with Pete. So, yeah, right...he was told to stay away from the trial for "his own benefit." (Sarcasm font)
Yeah, I bet his zookeeper told him that in a really kindly tone, too. Like the last time Will McDonald came along and hustled Pete out of the JACC trial and talked to him in the hallway while we listened, and Pete turned nine shades of furious, frustrated red.
Word. If Pete shows up at the trial, we call the people who grasp the other end of his leash and we will watch Pete turn nine shades of furious, frustrated red. Pete should go back to picking up trash on his street. At least that was halfway sort of productive.
To Nick Klaus--
Try contacting the nice folks at Harvard to see if they will send you a PDF copy of the complaint. In fact, I wish they would post it on their website, with its crazy-as-all-get-out assertions that my blog is not entitled to First Amendment protection! (Apparently because I am not critical enough of public officials like Don Samuels)
Here's the link to their website.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/moore-v-allen
Well John, Pete didn't have a cell phone. Didn't take the pictures, and didn't do anything wrong. Your complaint was unfounded harassment and we are documenting and gathering evidence which takes time, but we will get you in the long run and charge you. Bet on it.
See ya in court, maybe.
The 1st Amendment is not absolute. Not all speech is protected.
Your blog harasses people and it contains "fighting words", and falsehoods. The outcome will be interesting because interference with a contract is not protected speech.
In regards to Spanky Pete not having a phone, I actually dispute that. I heard Spanky Pete with my own ears, as he exited from the stairwell and he approached Jill Clark and Jerry Moore, he passed on a message from "Peggy" (presumably Peggy Katch, the person who has been signing Jill Clark's cover letters and legal filings, also known as wife of Michael Katch) - so with my own ears I heard Spanky Pete verbally pass on a message from Peggy Katch, to Jill Clark. I would have to assume it was via phone. Unless Peggy Katch is sending messages via pigeons or smoke signals. Certainly Spanky Pete didn't have computer access so it couldn't have been an email message. And Spanky Pete doesn't drive, so it's not likely it was an in person message delivered via Spanky Pete because the timing of that just doesn't make sense.
Further, it just makes one wonder why Spanky Pete is passing on a verbal message to Jill Clark, from Jill Clark's own office assistant? Does Spanky Pete often have himself inserted in the inner workings of the Jill Clark legal office? Is he a regular character at the office? Does he get on computers at the Jill Clark law office? What exactly is the relationship with Spanky Pete and Jill Clark? Does she help him with his legal filings? What else is going on there with Spanky Pete and Jill Clark?
You guys sure do worry a lot about Pete. Sounds like he has you guys running scared. This one guy has the all so powerful John Hoff oh so worried. Makes ya wonder why?
You ASSUME he had a phone with no proof. You PRESUME is was Jill's law clerk. You don't know what you heard.
Got news for ya. A handful of people are helping Pete, and we're collecting evidence against you two.
Pete may be nutty, but John Hoff is dangerous. With all his false bravado John still needs a Deputy to hold his hand. One of these days the Deputy will be slapping the cuffs on that hand. Maybe even in court March 3rd?
You trolls want to throw in with the loathsome child molesting Level Three sex offender who the courts have declared a frivolous litigant? Fine. You are already cartoon villains weaving ridiculous schemes like Team Rocket, so why not just go all the way over to the Darth Vader dark side and throw in with the child molesters?
By the way, if you have some knowledge about what kind of message Spanky Pete Rickmyer was relating to Jill Clark about Puh-Puh-Peggy, then puh-puh-please feel free to share.
Here. Link to Team Rocket clip on YouTube.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abGB8qmMpko&feature=related
More false bravado from John Coward Hoff the pussy boy soldier who needs a deputy to hold his hand.
WAAAAAAAAAAA. Fucking wus!! Afraid of Spanky Pete LMAO!!
Jerry is DOC - I heard him talking about it at the Bean Scene. Now LMAO - Jerry sure loves the child molesters. Sold any candy lately, Jerry?
Also, if those nutty Westbro Baptist can protest our heroic soldiers' funerals. See Supreme Court free speech decision (3/2/11). Then I am confident that Johnny Northside free speech will be protected.
Sorry kids. I'm not Jerry. But a lot of folks are taking about our investigation because we've been asking a lot of questions.
And I was right about a deputy visiting John in court wasn't I.
No, Doc, you are wrong. There was no visit by a Deputy today. Wrong. Sorry.
Confirmed. You are wrong about that. No deputy visited me in court. Though new and exciting details about Spanky Pete Rickmyer getting himself in a lot of hot water to be revealed soon...
Pete and Jerry. Pete must be the pussy and Jerry is definitely the mouse.The one who posts as DOC understands that his acronym means Demented Old Chomo so he, no doubt,has extreme empathy for a fellow pervert.No doubt.
Did some digging and found out Jill Clark was the attorney for a Brad Ronald Stevens who was committed as a sexually dangerous person.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/1002/opa090756-0209.pdf
This, above, lists Stevens pro se but Clark is listed as the attorney in Minnesota Courts website.
Also the attorney for a sexually dangerous guy named Thomas Wayne Evenstad.
Case No. 27-MH-PR-06-552
Also, both Jill Clark and Jill M. Waite ("The Two Jills") have been the attorney for William Gordon Alsaker, a predatory offender charged with Predatory Offender- Knowingly Violates Registration Req. or Intentionally Provides False Information.
This guy does NOT appear to be a Level Three, however.
Are you suggesting that offenders are not entitled to representation? Jill Clark donates her time to a number of cases.
Paid attorneys and public defenders also represent sex offenders. Are you suggesting that they are not entitled to representation?
Are you paying Godfread, or is he donating his time?
I am certainly NOT suggesting sex offenders aren't entitled to representation and you KNOW that. I suspect you are "law trained" as much as I am, or even more.
As for the other part of your question...
What was the question again? Refresh my memory? Ha ha.
Oh, Johnny....the lawsuit against you is what I consider Karma at it's best. Maybe this will teach you a lesson, or the golden rule perhaps? Good luck...
I am certainly NOT suggesting sex offenders aren't entitled to representation and you KNOW that.
Sure you are. WTF? You're trying to insinuate something about someone's lawyer because of what some of their past clients have done. That's a good way to drain away every last drop of being on the side of the good guys you might have in this "local politics flame war" mess you've got going here.
I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself:
I am not suggesting sex offenders aren't entitled to representation. And you know that.
Post a Comment