Sunday, May 20, 2012

Level Three Sex Offender "Spanky Pete" Writes Whiny Letter To Sheriff's Department Complaining About This Blogger, Confidential Source Forwards Letter To...THIS BLOGGER, Ha ha ha!

Photo by a friend, blog post by John Hoff

Peter Rickyer, the Level Three Sex Offender who long ago crossed the line from Northside "gadfly" to perverted pain in the ass, recently sent a letter to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. Rickmyer, who is unhealthily obsessed with a particular post on this blog featuring a picture of him, click here, wrote the following letter on May 16...

(It's more fun if you read the letter in a Spanky Pete voice)

Hennepin County Sheriff Stanik (sic)
Minneapolis City Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Dear Sheriff Stanik, (sic)

John Willard Hoff considers himself as media, however disregards Guidelines for use of cameras in the Hennepin county Buildings and General Rules for use of the Hennepin County Law Library.

Hoff brings cameras and recording devises (sic) in Hennepin County Government Center (floors 3 to 24) for purposes of harassing people including me on his website and has caused harm in doing so.


June 3 2010 Hoff admitted taking pictures of me (see attached ex. 1) in the Hennepin County Government Center Law Library located 24th floor while I was working on appeal and was forced to drop appeal due to harassment.

It is noteworthy Hennepin County Security, Law Library staff stated I had to catch Hoff in the act of taking picture of me b4 (sic) they would stop Hoff from harassing me, as a result every 30 seconds I was looking for Hoff and could not appeal the case. Hoff interfered with legal process.

Request of Hennepin County Sheriff's Department

1.) Hennepin County Sheriff's Department sends Hoff a letter and a copy of Guidelines for use of cameras in Hennepin county Buildings (attached ex. 2) and tell Hoff he needs to abide by the Guidelines.

2.) Hennepin County Sheriff's Department sends Hoff a letter and a copy of General Rules for use of the Hennepin County Law Library and explain to Hoff taking pictures of persons and or to intentionally run into a Law Library patron violates the conduct policy for Law Library.

3.) Hennepin County Sheriff's Department do not allow Hoff to bring cameras and or recording devises (sic) on Floors 3 to 24 of the Hennepin County Government Center.

Respectfully Submitted,

Peter Rickmyer
2118 25th Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411
(Rickmyer's phone number)


I emailed the individual who sent me this, to make sure it was cool that I publish it. I received no reply so I figured, what the heck, publish it. I do think the comments of my source are informative, as follows.

Here is some of Peter's latest work product.  You'll note that he couldn't be bothered to look up the correct spelling of Sheriff Stanek's name.  I'm sure that will be even more likely to make the sheriff want to go through the trouble to look up your home address, compose two letters to you explaining the various Guidelines and General Rules, and then mail them to you at department expense.

Or maybe not.  I bet Rickmyer doesn't even get a form letter in reply.
Love your work!

It should be noted that I have never actually admitted to taking the photo in question. Every photo on Johnny Northside has a photo credit. When I first published this photo, the photo credit read something like, "Spanky Pete never saw me taking this picture of him." It was a photo credit unlike any of my other photo credits.

On its face, that sentence is NOT an admission that  I took the photo. It may be a creative way of never saying where the photo came from. Currently, the photo bears no photo credit. Once again, there is no other photo like that on the blog. Every other photo has a photo credit, unless a MISTAKE was made, for example, by one of my contributors. No, there's something SPECIAL about this particular photo.

Therefore, Spanky Pete should consider the possibility other people are secretly photographing him in the county building, in the law library, or anywhere else and might forward those photos to me for me to publish, assuming the photos are interesting, informative, and do not show Spanky Pete exposing his penis like he once did to a child, since a photo of Spanky Pete showing his penis would be "adult material" and I don't publish adult material.


Peter Rickmyer's grammar, syntax, and obsessive writing style reveal much about how cracked his noggin is.

Who in the world puts "b4" in a formal typed letter as a substitute for the word "before"? Who doesn't trouble to look up a name like "Stanek" to make sure it's spelled correctly before dropping a letter to the sheriff of a major metropolitan area? This guy is not firing on all cylinders. Of course...

We already KNEW that.

Profuse thanks to readers who send me valuable info behind the scenes. 


Anonymous said...

No date, no actual letter, another "confidential source" that will remain unnamed.
Sounds like another of JNS's made up articles to boost readership and generate comments. And look, it worked. I commented!!

Johnny Northside! said...

The letter is dated May 16. Read the post a little more closely. Take your time, since that will "boost my readership."

And then be sure to comment.

This blog is popular not just because of its interesting content, creative-yet-clear prose, but also because our information is reliable. When I say I have a source, I have a source. If I'm making something up, like in a parody post, it's clearly labeled as such.

Anonymous said...

Prove it. Let's see the original letter, or an actual copy of it.
If you don't believe Eric is Eric, why should anyone believe you?

Johnny Northside! said...

If you don't believe that's the letter, then why would you believe the copy is real, either?

I'm not going to be posting this electronic letter with its electronic clues as to its origin from my source.

Best of luck on all your future endeavors.

Anonymous said...

Fine, I'll go right to the source. Rich is a very cool guy.

Johnny Northside! said...

Tell him hi for me.

Anonymous said...

You expect us to believe that Pete, who doesn't have access to the internet or an email address, sent an email to "Stanik". And some anonymous source in his office got the email and sent a copy to you.
And that Pete sent this email on May 16, 2012, about something that happened on 2010.
Makes absolutely no sense. You haven't been in the USA for the past year, there are no Hennepin County court hearings scheduled that you will be attending, and Pete has been told by his keepers to stay away from you.
And you cannot/will not provide any evidence to support your claims.
Why would Pete send such an email?
How would Pete send such an email?

Before you the explain this away as Pete being irrational, I suggest you look at the facts. The facts say, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that you are making this up.
Prove me wrong. But I bet you can't.

Johnny Northside! said...

The letter appears to have been a typed or word processed hard copy in its original form, but was sent to me as a PDF.

So, no, I certainly don't expect you to believe Pete emailed it, because I'm not saying he did, though whether Spanky ever gets access to email or internet, under somebody's supervision or in ways he is not supposed to, is another question and another issue entirely.

I have a great idea, and you've inspired this great idea. How about I send the letter to Pete's zookeeper with DOC and let THAT PERSON sort it all out, whether the letter is real and whether Pete should have sent it or not?

Johnny Northside! said...

Oh, and also...



Yup, that accounts for a lot.

Anonymous said...

If a picture of Spanky is worth 1000 words, surely video of Sir Spanksalot would be worth 10,000 bloggy words, no?

Johnny Northside! said...

It's a theoretical question unless you have some way of making it real for me.

Johnny Northside! said...

To You Know Who You Are,

Give me a couple hours, tied up with something, I will send you that email. But you have my email, can you just send it as a video file?

Anonymous said...

While we weren't watching, Peter Rickmyer's case against the Commissioner of Corrections at the Court of Appeals went down in flames. The court upheld the district court's decision to deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 9.

The Order Opinion (PDF) has an ugly URL, but it does appear to be static:

Only 6 pages!

Johnny Northside! said...

I'm writing a blog post based on this information right now. Thanks so much for sharing that info.