Friday, April 15, 2011

Attorney Jill Clark Receives Second Judicial Diss Over "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer Matter...

Blog post by John Hoff, technical help with image acknowledged, and you're right, top shelf tastes better

While Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer continues to rot in prison after violating his parole through attempts to throw his worthless legal paper in the direction of this blog, his attorney Jill Clark makes attempts to assist him. But these attempts don't seem to be getting anywhere and--if my reading of the documents is correct--have done little more than severely annoy two different judges. Compare the letter, above, with this previous letter from the Honorable Judge Blaeser.

As for the letter above, if readers are having difficulty understanding it then we're all in the same boat.

But here's my bottom line:

(And when I say "bottom," I don't mean that in a non-consensual, "Golden Chicken Spanky Wanky Incident" kinda way)

An attempt was made to deliberately inject confusion into the legal process and the judge called it out, forcefully. Also, Rule 9 Frivolous Litigant Peter Rickmyer can't shoehorn himself into in forma pauperis status and, once again, use the courts as a weapon to launch frivolous legal paper at the whole world.

(Do Not Click "Read More")


Anonymous said...

The sense I make out of it, Jill Clark respects the First Amendment. The right to petition government for redress clause. To use the courts, IFP. IF it is in her client's interest.

She dislikes the First Amendment, freedoms of speech and the press clauses. IF they cut against her other client's interest.

Her track record forms the circumstances, and we are left to make circumstantial inferences of whether the entire First Amendment is an elastic thing to attorney Clark.

I do not see the First Amendment as an elastic thing. I do see it as one size fits all, but not by pulling it here, poking it there.

Following expediency can be problematic, as to how integrated one's philosophical outlook may be. Inferring a situational ethics as possibly at play is not entirely unreasonable - and such an inference would be an opinion based upon fact, and not a direct representation of any particular factual situation.

More sense to make of this letter, a careful judge is taking substantial time to see that his view of history is clearly documented.

And that costs taxpayers money.

More sense I see to it, if Clark files for her client, or some other attorney invests that level of time, there will be an impartial review.

It seems to be a suggestion that "pro se" and IFP mixed into the same stew, for this individual, made the judge anticipate it could result in an abusive wasting of court time. Again, circumstantial inference is needed, leading to opinion that is open to challenge.

"Bottom Line" was not hard to understand.

I wonder what court rule that "renewal" of IFP petition procedure was grounded upon.

BOTTOM LINE: Ask yourself, if Jill Clark runs for a judgeship again will Johnny Northside and those valuing what you've done be voting for her?

So far that's a hypothetical until filing time for the next election cycle, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

I see that John Hoff AND the Adventures of Johnny Northside are copied on the document.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't appear to me that she got "dissed" at all. Legal matters can be quite complicated. And one person’s interpretation of the law and/or documents, and be very different from that of another.
From my reading of this letter, it appears Mr. Rickmyer submitted some incomplete pro se documents and Attorney Clark was attempting to establish an argument for allowing a correction after the fact (which typically is not allowed). The fact that the Judge states he would have allowed the correction under a very specific situation, shows that Attorney Clark achieved a positive result.
The letter from Judge Swenson is quite professional and is very typical of an exchange between an attorney and a Judge. I see nothing to indicate Attorney Clark received any type of admonishment from the Judge. It appears you have some personal quarrel with Attorney Clark.

Johnny Northside! said...

To the poster at 7:33 AM.

Jill Clark run for judge again? I would bet against it. And I say that as somebody who has run for public offices and student government offices before, winning some and losing some and feeling, intensely, the very public ups and downs.

When you're a nubie at running for public office, and you run and get your electoral head served to you in a Tupperware container, it's traumatic and quite common for somebody in that situation to not run again for several years, if EVER.

I think Clark is in that psychological boat right now. If she runs for judge again, it would surprise me. But it would also DELIGHT me, because this blog would love to report on it...

If we're around to do so.

Did I mention we're taking PayPal donations to fight our legal battles? Well, here's another mention.

Johnny Northside! said...

To the poster at 1:29 PM, who I am going to nickname "Jill" and call you by that name whenever I see you anonymously posting and suspect it is the same "law trained" person anonymously commenting on my blog:

What an interesting point of view! To say this letter is somehow "typical" of letters between lawyers and judges.

If by "typical" you mean the judge is calling b.s. on some "rabbit in the hat" trick the lawyer is trying to pull off, I could agree with you.

As for "positive result," ask "Spanky Pete" as he rots in prison how positive the result was.

NoMi Passenger said...

@11:17am - the answer is because that is how Spanky Pete worded the original attempt at a lawsuit over a year ago in Feb 2010.

Anonymous said...

OK I give up what is IFP?
I'm For Pedophiles?

Johnny Northside! said...

In Forma Pauperis.

It sorta means "I'm For Pedophiles" in this case, because it means stuff can be filed in court without paying court fees. Spanky Pete was using the courts as a weapon to file frivolous and baseless lawsuits to harass people. That right was taken away from him, and all glory and praise to the Honorable Judge Robert Blaeser.

Anonymous said...

IFP's are NOT FREE. There is no free lunch, people.

If Rickmyer doesn't pay for his legal (mis)adventures, those dollars have to come from SOMEWHERE!

It costs REAL money to hear cases, serve documents, pay witnesses, and transcribe testimony.

Pete the Ped should add this to the list of "free" stuff he gets (or USED to get), i.e. general assistance, food stamps, medical assistance, heating bill assistance, etc.

Johnny Northside! said...

He doesn't get any of that stuff while he's in prison, right?

Sure hope food stamps, heating assistance, etc. all know about his little stay in the pokey.

boathead said...

I would dare say that if Mental Pete were in Joliet Prison in Illinois that he would remain on the free money list. He will probably still collect his Social Security though because that is very easy to process in this state and every body and their families know it. Go ahead, sit outside the Drake Hotel some day of the week or any day of the week and a whole bus load of FLOTSAM and JETSAM will arrive in the land of the free money grab with cousins,uncles and anties not fucking far behind. Mental Pete and his ILK should all be banished to a fucking island and left there to rot along with all of the derelicts that find their sorry asses begging from the state of Minnesota. Fuck all of you Chomoes and all of you out of town pieces of lazy shit. I am sick of you and about to snap.Good Day.