Stock photo, Hennepin County Jail, blog post by John HoffOn March 10, 2011, Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer was arrested and taken into custody. This followed telephonic complaints made to probation officials about Peter's behavior: attempting to serve purported legal paper in the courthouse, twice, on Johnny Northside blog (neither attempt accomplished actual service or court jurisdiction, however) and following a female North Minneapolis citizen around inside the county building, to the point she was able to photograph him with a cell phone.
So Rickmyer was arrested and a probation revocation hearing was set for today, March 24, because Peter is, after all, a Level Three sex offender and only out in our community because he's on probation. His sentence goes until, gee, 2016. Click here for his special little Department of Corrections page, and note the current status.
Simultaneously, while facing a probation revocation hearing, Rickmyer was required to appear before Judge Robert Blaeser on an "order to show cause" for contempt of court, specifically because Rickmyer had attempted to file an "affidavit of service" purporting to serve legal paper on this blogger. (Rickmyer couldn't actually serve this blogger, however, because he has been declared a frivolous litigant under Rule 9) Technically, the legal paper doesn't appear to be a lawsuit, per se, but a pathetically worded rambling request for an "injunction" saying this blogger has somehow photographed Rickmyer and this has interfered with Rickmyer's ability to "think."
After being in jail for a while, Rickmyer retained attorney Jill Clark...
As previously reported on this blog, Clark committed various and sundry crimes against the trees of earth by filing a great big wasteful wad of quasi-legal crapola, including assertions the civil contempt of court proceeding was somehow a criminal proceeding and asserting the judge was less than objective.
At today's hearing, the legal standard was mere "clear and convincing evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Hearsay, for example, was allowed.
Clark reportedly tried to turn the tables at the proceeding, putting forward a case for Peter Rickmyer being "harassed" because this blog has been (OMG!) writing about him.
So, for example, if Peter were to try to serve legal paper on this blog, and this blog were to report on the attempt to serve papers...that would somehow be HARASSMENT.
Of Peter.
In Clark's twisted world view, it is HARASSMENT of a Level Three sex offender to report on his frivolous lawsuits, his creepy hanging around at community meetings with minors present, his attempts to get around a judicial order by filing a civil rights complaint instead of a lawsuit.
Clark reportedly had printouts of pages from this blog, indexed with yellow sticky notes, and the pile was a full two inches thick. The hearing started at about 11 a.m. and went until around 3:45 p.m. Peter Rickmyer was not present in the room during the hearing.
In the end, none of Clark's efforts mattered. Peter was found in violation of his probation.
At about 4 p.m. I spoke on the record to Hana L. O'Neill, Corrections Unit Supervisor, Sex Offender Unit in her office on the 8th Floor of the Hennepin County Government Building. O'Neill was reluctant to say very much and was careful what she said, but it would be fair to say she was helpful, professional, and even friendly.
O'Neill stated Peter had been found in violation on ONE of the alleged violations.
"How many were there?" I asked.
"More than one," she answered, after a thoughtful pause.
Because of this violation, Peter would be "returned to his institution." O'Neill did not know precisely which institution this would be. An official at the jail said that tomorrow Peter would be sent on a bus to St. Cloud where a kind of "sorting" takes place. Prisoners either stay in St. Cloud or go to other institutions, depending on various factors including health needs. In the case of a Level Three sex offender, it was speculated such an individual would go to the Moose Lake Facility or Rush City.
O'Neill characterized Pete's violation as "technical," and said specifically it was not a violation that included stalking or harassment. (Such as the "following around" activity in the court building)
It is believed by this blog the "technical violation" is, in fact, Peter attempting to file an affidavit of service after being declared a frivolous litigant.
Notably, Peter might still have to deal with a contempt of court hearing over that very issue, but for purposes of probation violation, it may be the matter has already been decided.
And so, for a couple happy months, North Minneapolis will get a reprieve from ONE sex offender. The neighborhood is still full of sex offenders.
In an offhand remark, O'Neill said the Department of Community Corrections "doesn't like being in the middle of this." To which this blogger replied, "My neighborhood doesn't like being in the middle of this." Gesturing to a map on the wall full of pins representing the locations of sex offenders, I pointed out L3SOs are being "dumped" in North Minneapolis, and citizens of North Minneapolis are becoming increasingly unhappy and vocal.
Peter "Spanky Pete" is the tip of the deviant iceberg. North Minneapolis has borne this burden for too long. We want a reprieve. We DEMAND a reprieve.
We want the army of sex offenders out, out, OUT.
So Rickmyer was arrested and a probation revocation hearing was set for today, March 24, because Peter is, after all, a Level Three sex offender and only out in our community because he's on probation. His sentence goes until, gee, 2016. Click here for his special little Department of Corrections page, and note the current status.
Simultaneously, while facing a probation revocation hearing, Rickmyer was required to appear before Judge Robert Blaeser on an "order to show cause" for contempt of court, specifically because Rickmyer had attempted to file an "affidavit of service" purporting to serve legal paper on this blogger. (Rickmyer couldn't actually serve this blogger, however, because he has been declared a frivolous litigant under Rule 9) Technically, the legal paper doesn't appear to be a lawsuit, per se, but a pathetically worded rambling request for an "injunction" saying this blogger has somehow photographed Rickmyer and this has interfered with Rickmyer's ability to "think."
After being in jail for a while, Rickmyer retained attorney Jill Clark...
As previously reported on this blog, Clark committed various and sundry crimes against the trees of earth by filing a great big wasteful wad of quasi-legal crapola, including assertions the civil contempt of court proceeding was somehow a criminal proceeding and asserting the judge was less than objective.
At today's hearing, the legal standard was mere "clear and convincing evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Hearsay, for example, was allowed.
Clark reportedly tried to turn the tables at the proceeding, putting forward a case for Peter Rickmyer being "harassed" because this blog has been (OMG!) writing about him.
So, for example, if Peter were to try to serve legal paper on this blog, and this blog were to report on the attempt to serve papers...that would somehow be HARASSMENT.
Of Peter.
In Clark's twisted world view, it is HARASSMENT of a Level Three sex offender to report on his frivolous lawsuits, his creepy hanging around at community meetings with minors present, his attempts to get around a judicial order by filing a civil rights complaint instead of a lawsuit.
Clark reportedly had printouts of pages from this blog, indexed with yellow sticky notes, and the pile was a full two inches thick. The hearing started at about 11 a.m. and went until around 3:45 p.m. Peter Rickmyer was not present in the room during the hearing.
In the end, none of Clark's efforts mattered. Peter was found in violation of his probation.
At about 4 p.m. I spoke on the record to Hana L. O'Neill, Corrections Unit Supervisor, Sex Offender Unit in her office on the 8th Floor of the Hennepin County Government Building. O'Neill was reluctant to say very much and was careful what she said, but it would be fair to say she was helpful, professional, and even friendly.
O'Neill stated Peter had been found in violation on ONE of the alleged violations.
"How many were there?" I asked.
"More than one," she answered, after a thoughtful pause.
Because of this violation, Peter would be "returned to his institution." O'Neill did not know precisely which institution this would be. An official at the jail said that tomorrow Peter would be sent on a bus to St. Cloud where a kind of "sorting" takes place. Prisoners either stay in St. Cloud or go to other institutions, depending on various factors including health needs. In the case of a Level Three sex offender, it was speculated such an individual would go to the Moose Lake Facility or Rush City.
O'Neill characterized Pete's violation as "technical," and said specifically it was not a violation that included stalking or harassment. (Such as the "following around" activity in the court building)
It is believed by this blog the "technical violation" is, in fact, Peter attempting to file an affidavit of service after being declared a frivolous litigant.
Notably, Peter might still have to deal with a contempt of court hearing over that very issue, but for purposes of probation violation, it may be the matter has already been decided.
And so, for a couple happy months, North Minneapolis will get a reprieve from ONE sex offender. The neighborhood is still full of sex offenders.
In an offhand remark, O'Neill said the Department of Community Corrections "doesn't like being in the middle of this." To which this blogger replied, "My neighborhood doesn't like being in the middle of this." Gesturing to a map on the wall full of pins representing the locations of sex offenders, I pointed out L3SOs are being "dumped" in North Minneapolis, and citizens of North Minneapolis are becoming increasingly unhappy and vocal.
Peter "Spanky Pete" is the tip of the deviant iceberg. North Minneapolis has borne this burden for too long. We want a reprieve. We DEMAND a reprieve.
We want the army of sex offenders out, out, OUT.
10 comments:
What saddens me about Pete's situation is that he is being used as a pawn in this battle. Pete is so happy when someone will treat him like he isn't a child molestor that he will do anything for them when they are nice to him. If Pete became a pedophile as a victim of abuse himself, them whoever is using Pete is perpetuating that abuse...vicious cycle.
I absolutely agree that Pete is being used as a pawn in this battle. The real question is WHO is using him? And how are they putting him up to doing the things he is doing, if indeed he is being (to some degree) controlled and directed?
I have a pretty good idea who it might be and, believe me, the search for proof and evidence is ongoing and when such proof and evidence is compiled, it will go where it needs to go.
Meanwhile, maybe Pete should consider if his so-called friends got him in over his head, and whether there would be any value in, gee, making formal complaints against his so-called friends?
If Pete wants to scratch out a handwritten letter from prison, I will read it. While I consider some of Pete's written communications to be harassment--his frivolous lawsuits, his attempts at injunction, etc--I wouldn't really mind a letter from Pete discussing who put him up to doing what he's doing.
If Pete tells what he knows, I suspect he has the power to cause quite a storm. And if I were Pete right now I'd be PISSED. PISSED at being in prison and asking myself, well, WHO PUT ME UP TO ALL THIS?
What saddens me about Pete's "situation" is that if Petey isn't treated nice he goes out and molests children. A pawn in the battle of what? Pete's been fucked up his whole goddamn life and when you start feeling sorry for fucking CHOMOES the viscious cycle isn't the one you're talking about, anonameass sympathyser 2:56,it's the one you are perpetrating.
If you think Pete is being told what to do by someone else, I suspect you are crazier than he is.
No one is programming Pete. He is, however, informed what you write about him and he just wants you to stop harassing him. The words you write about him are "fighting words", and he has legal grounds to seek justice. The problem is he just doesn't have the resources - until now. Several people are willing to help him strike back at your harassment. And if that means helping him find an attorney to file his lawsuits, that just may happen. And there is nothing Will McDonald, or Judge Blaeser can do to stop it as long as an attorney represents him. Further, Will McDonald might just be looking at a 42USC1983 action if he violated Pete's civil rights.
You want to take off the gloves? Look behind you, there are not as many supporters as you think, and you're getting other good people into hot water by drawing them into your affairs.
So while Pete is acting on his own, it looks a lot like Will McDonald is getting his marching orders from John Hoff and that is going to be a problem for him and Hana O'Neil. (Thanks for the excellent documentation provided by this blog). And before you start calling us a bunch of pedophile supporters, we prefer to be called supporters of civil rights.
No, it's not hot water, it's CHAMPAGNE.
Look at the party pictures.
CHAMPAGNE.
Bunch of pedophile supporters...
My guess is ANON @ March 26, 2011 11:06 AM is none other than "Jill Clark Defender of Civil Rights."
Fighting words? I would have to guess that Mental Pete's actions justify much more than fighting if those that he victimized have a say also.They do, don't they? I wonder what they are feeling after being molested by a DOCUMENTED PERVERT and have to live with the memory the rest of their lives no matter how they may come to grips about why this sorry excuse for a man chose them to molest. Harassment? The pendulum swings both ways, but to make any excuse for what he and those who adorn the Level3 Offender List have done is akin to lying with the dogs and waking up with fleas. So,Anonameass 11:06, better run to Peteco and get your collar because the dogs are howling as we type. Good Day and get the fuck to church!
Information in my hands at this moment that Peter's parole was "violated" over his attempt to file an injunction against this blogger. I strongly suspected this was the case but now have the smoking gun proof in the form of Peter's ALL CAPS handwritten letter to the judge.
I fail to see how that violated his probation. Was that something the Judge ordered as part of his sentencing? Or something Will McDonald said he couldn't do?
Post a Comment