Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Spanky Pete Meets Defeat (Level Three Sex Offender Peter Rickmyer Manages To Lose Two Court Cases In One Day, Guess Who Is His Loony Toons Lawyer?)

Stock photo, skyway connected to Hennepin County Government Building, where you're very like run into Spanky Pete scuttling around like a crab, blog post by John Hoff

Peter Rickmyer, the Level Three Sex Offender whose frivolous lawsuits against the world at large ultimately resulted in his being declared a "frivolous litigant," unable to file lawsuits without a set of licensed lawyer training wheels being firmly attached to his bike of legal madness, got a double spanking recently along with his lawyer, Jill Clark. Two of Pete's lawsuits were brutally dismissed on April 5, and he can soon expect to be slapped with defendant Michael "Kip" Browne's hefty legal fees.

This "injurious lawsuit boomerang" result is eerily similar to what happened with Clark's clients in the "true JACC" case, and in the Bicking case, and in the Veches case, and the Gathje case.

Though not a resident of North Minneapolis, in the last several years Clark has managed to get her fat fingers in the pie of almost every prominent issue in our neighborhood, always to the detriment of the issue itself as Clark transforms dry legal proceedings into a stage for her own flaky vision of justice and wild accusations of conspiracies, the actual plaintiffs themselves be damned.

No surprise, therefore, that Clark hitched herself to Spanky Pete's raggedy-ass bandwagon when the law said Pete couldn't keep suing people without a licensed lawyer.

"Wait," Clark must have thought to herself. "I'm a licensed attorney! Well, for the time being, anyway!"

So let's examine precisely what happened with Pete's lawsuits, copies of which I received today by email. We'll start with the oldest lawsuit first...

In 27-CV-10-3378, Spanky Pete sued Robert Hodson, this blogger, this blog, attorney David Schooler, the Jordan Area Community Council, (JACC) Joel Pucely, Mike Martin, (the commander of the Fourth Precinct, some set of balls on this pervert Spanky Pete!) Scott Olson, John G. Hubbard II (known as PJ Hubbard) Ann McCandless, Michael "Kip" Browne, Briggs and Morgan, (David Schooler's law firm) Brandon Bartholemew, Jeffrey B. Newman, John Haddy, John Does 1-25 and Jane Does 1-20, (begin joke font) The So-Called Lord God Almighty, The Known And Perceivable Universe, My (expletive deleted) Parents, That Guy On The Bus Who Always Looks At Me Like I Might Whack Off In The Seat, My Little Dog "Foofy" Who Ran Away OR DID I ACTUALLY CUT OFF HIS DOGGY JUNK AND HE (expletive deleted) BLED OUT, and Evil Pete Who Lives In My Pants. (End joke font)

This is the case where Peter Rickmyer tried to have me served with his legal paper while I was in city council chambers at the Police Chief Dolan confirmation hearing and I miraculously escaped, then opportunistically left the state on a long truck driving trip. Spanky never did manage to serve me in that lawsuit.

That case was not only dismissed, but Rickmyer was declared a frivolous litigant, the litigation equivalent of a vasectomy. Notwithstanding the fact this case was dead, and Rickmyer failed to appeal in a timely fashion, Jill Clark (on behalf of Rickmyer) tried to get the district court to (basically) overturn itself and "vacate" the order. In this most recent ruling, the court said, in so many words, "We're not going to do that."

The court also spent some time addressing the fact that any correspondence this blogger may have sent, inter alia, to the court denying service had taken place did not (by any wild eyed stretch of attorney Jill Clark's feverish imagination) constitute a fraud on the court.

A somewhat humorous note here: I remember being out on the road, in a hotel room, and lacking a mailing envelope, lacking stamps...unable to procure these things and yet feeling the pressing need to inform the court...which kept, like, MAILING me stuff as though I were part of the loony proceedings...that I hadn't been served. I did have a stamped postcard handy. And so, (with an apology being the first line from my pen) I sent the Honorable Court an Honorable Postcard. The court record soberly records the postcard missive as "correspondence."

To Jill Clark I say: fine, the next time you or one of your sex offender clients want a postcard from beautiful, exotic locales so badly I'll send ya'll a postcard, but only if you SOLEMNLY PROMISE not to have a raving lunatic fit about it.

Of course, the fact Clark and Pete lost on the motion to vacate hardly matters. Their motion is simply a flimsy little foundation for an inevitable appeal. As one lawyer I spoke to explained, a motion to vacate the judgment was the ONLY POSSIBLE MOVE on this case.

This legal result was hardly a surprise. This case was so dead and buried it had dirt in its empty eye sockets. The second Spanky Pete case is much more interesting because, well, live things are so much more interesting than dead things.

(Spanky Pete voice: "But dead things are so much easier to control!"

In the second lawsuit, 27-CV-11-11012, State Ex Rel Peter Stephenson a/k/a Peter Rickmyer, once again Spanky Pete tries to sue the world at large. The lawsuit is against "Joan Fabian in her capacity as Commissioner of Corrections, and her successor, Tom Roy, in his official capacity." Also named are Will McDonald, (formerly the Department of Corrections "zoo keeper" for sex offender Spanky Pete) this blogger, Megan Goodmundson, Michael "Kip" Browne, and John Does 1-3.

It's a tough economy. Jill has had to cut back on John Does, and give up the Jane Does entirely.

In this case, Michael "Kip" Browne, an active citizen in North Minneapolis who was involved in taking back the Jordan Area Community Council from rampant mismanagement, resulting in the drawn out "true JACC" litigation (Jill Clark again!) led the charge against Spanky Pete. The other defendants pretty much drafted off Kip's legal moves. But once again, this blogger managed to avoid getting served because I just happened to get deployed to Afghanistan. Yes, sometimes my ability to avoid service amazes even me. From where did this hidden talent spring, I wonder?

Incredibly, though fully aware of the provisions of the Service Members Civil Relief Act, (SMCRA) Clark tried to bring a default motion against me, even though I've never been served in the first place and I was ALSO deployed to Afghanistan. This motion by Clark failed. And this most recent ruling upholds the court's Order Staying Further Proceedings Against Defendant John Hoff.

But, really, this is Defendant Kip Browne's special day, so let's concentrate on Browne, shall we? In this second lawsuit, Level Three Sex Offender Spanky Pete sued over having his "conditional release" briefly revoked and being sent back to prison for several weeks. Why was Rickmyer's "conditional release" revoked? Well, because after being declared a frivolous litigant, Pete still tried to serve legal papers on this blogger, a supposed "injunction" against this blog.

And yet somehow MICHAEL "KIP" BROWNE was supposed to be responsible for this? Part of some vast Northside conspiracy to make miserable the life of one poor little sex offender?

So Browne was left holding the legal bag while I lived the high life in a mud-straw-and-goat dung "qalat" in Afghanistan. I should feel bad Browne had to fight my battle but I wouldn't wish Afghanistan on a vicious, feral dog.

Through his attorney, David Schooler (who was a defendant in the PREVIOUS case, go figure!) Browne asked for a dismissal on the basis of Rickmyer's claim being barred by Heck v. Humphrey. That case can be summarized as follows: you can't file a "1983" civil rights case for false imprisonment when neither the terms of your release (from prison) nor the revocation of your release has been legally invalidated. Jill Clark attempted to argue that Heck v. Humphrey didn't apply...those arguments didn't work. Rickmyer couldn't even find a way to prove Browne acted under "color of law," which is absolutely necessary for a 1983 action.

(Spanky Pete voice font)

"But his name is BROWNE! That's a color!"

(End Spanky Pete voice font)

As the Honorable Court puts it so well, "Throughout the complaint Rickmyer argues, in conclusory fashion, a conspiracy among Browne and public actors to deprive Rickmyer of his constitutional rights." Here, "conclusory fashion" should be translated as "without anything to back it up."

At another point the court says, "Paragraph 22 is the very essence of a conclusory allegation because it contains no specific facts and rests entirely on speculation." This sentence can be translated as, "Look in a legal dictionary under the phrase 'conclusory allegation' and you will see a picture of Jill Clark."

And, in a sentence that Clark would do well to have tattooed on her forehead, "Contacting a public official to express concerns and invoke the authority of the public official does not give rise to a conspiracy..." And, in a footnote that would make another very nice tattoo in the middle of Clark's back, "Plaintiff's subjective belief that there was a conspiracy does not mean that there was a conspiracy."

Finally, Browne wins his attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. So how much did Browne win? Though the exact amount is being determined, I strongly suspect that if you put the entire amount in single dollar bills, it would fill a small rowboat. In other words...

A boatload of money.

Finally, Rickmyer's attempts to sue me while I was serving in Afghanistan are handled by the court in a dismissive tone. It reads kind of like "the law protects soldiers serving overseas (stomp stomp) and Hoff is a soldier serving overseas (stomp stomp) therefore Hoff is covered by the law."

The last sentence of that section reads, "Further elaboration is unnecessary." Translation: Clark, how exactly did you graduate from law school?"

I must confess, however, it is thrilling to see my service in Afghanistan memorialized in a court order.

As always, an appeal is expected.

I pity the poor wasted trees.


Anonymous said...

That was a completely enjoyable and thoroughly delicious post. Thanks for the update!

Johnny Northside! said...

The word "parole" published in an earlier version of this article has been changed to "conditional release" to more accurately reflect the EXACT legal terminology, and "briefly" sent back to prison changed to "for several weeks" to be more informative.

When talking about time in prison, I think "several weeks" is relatively brief, but even one day probably doesn't seem "brief," and the actual amount of time (even if approximate) is more informative.

Anonymous said...

Too bad Jill and Pete probably can't cover the costs.

Johnny Northside! said...

Well, why would Jill cover the costs? Unfortunately, it's only Pete.

Pete does own a house, however.

Anonymous said...

What about the Department of Corrections? Were they victorious?

Johnny Northside! said...

I guess it's fair to say all the defendants were victorious but it was Michael "Kip" Browne who made the actual motion to dismiss, and supported it with argument, and the motion was granted.

So everybody was victorious--even me, though I was never served--but it was Browne doing most of the work and everybody else deriving the benefit.

Anonymous said...

State v. Aschemann, MNCIS No. 27-CR-11-15710, Judge Robert Small, Courtroom 1653, defense atty Jill Clark, city atty: Sarah Becker, Thursday, April 12, jury trial in progress

Johnny Northside! said...

Criminal record shows nothing but a speeding ticket but there's a VERY interesting article about a guy called Dan Aschemann...

Oh, boy. Looking into this...

Johnny Northside! said...

Oh. Oh. Oh!!!!!

Yeah, this is a VERY interesting bit of information but I have to come back to this...

Anonymous said...

Wow you're jealous a L3SO gets more attention than do you, Mr. Huff. Your life is a very sad one.

Johnny Northside! said...

If I were jealous of the attention he gets, would I give him more by writing about him? Did you think about what you were writing before you wrote it, or did you just kind of mentally vomit on the keyboard?