after the victory in Moore v. Hoff, blog post by John Hoff
As expected, today federal judge Ann D. Montgomery remanded "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer's case back to state court citing multiple reasons the case shouldn't be in federal court. Click here for a copy of the order.
Montgomery actually announced her ruling at the conclusion of the hearing and the order was issued some hours later. Such speed is...
...highly unusual in court hearings, but it appears Rickmyer's frivolous and gibberish-filled filings have motived the courts to move swiftly. In fact, a hearing has already been scheduled in state court for January 22 (the court of the Honorable Judge Bush) to get a ruling on the long-delayed motion for summary judgment.
Today's hearing was a sad and lonely affair, even by bleak Spanky Pete standards. No defendants were there to have their valuable time wasted, only the two defendant attorneys; Paul Godfread and Julie K. Bowman on behalf of Hennepin County.
Of course, Peter Rickmyer was there but Clark didn't show up and, as noted in the order issued by the court, didn't even bother to contact the court to make some half-assed attempt to cite "medical issues" yet again. Of course, today was the last day for Clark to write up her response in the disciplinary hearing concerning her law license.
This blog has publicly predicted Clark will be suspended by Monday, with the document published on MNCIS by Tuesday.
Rickmyer spoke to Paul Godfread and made some kind of noises about how my blogging about the federal hearing was "ex parte" contact with the Honorable Judge Ann D. Montogomery. In fact, Rickmyer reportedly used the phrase "ex parte" until he just about wore the phrase out.
In a disjointed soliloquy that may have lasted half an hour, Rickmyer kept blathering on to Judge Montgomery about how his constitutional rights were being violated and he couldn't get a fair hearing in state court, where he has been declared a frivolous litigant. That was nice of Rickmyer to mention his frivolous litigant status, since it saved my attorney some effort. Judge Montgomery reportedly said something about how this lawsuit was a mish-mash of cases that really didn't belong together. That same idea--of this lawsuit being an unsuccessful attempt to mix cases together which don't really BELONG together--is reflected in the judge's order.
At today's hearing Rickmyer made a desperate little plea to separate out his case, if the mish-mash aspect of the lawsuit was such a problem, but the judge wasn't buying what Rickmyer was selling.
I would like to state that a media entity writing about a lawsuit against that same media entity is not, and never has been, considered ex parte contact with a judge.
Two motions in the case were dismissed as moot, one to consolidate the cases and one for Rickmyer proceed in forma pauperis.
In a conversation with a local attorney today, I was told Rickmyer has a "slam dunk" malpractice case against Jill Clark. Of course, there is the matter of what lawyer would ever want to represent Rickmyer, besides the aforementioned Jill Clark.