by John Hoff
Click here for Minnesota Court of Appeals Order, jurisdiction questioned.
Click here for recent Minnesota Court of Appeals Order, denying IFP status.
First, the tedious obligatory backstory: Peter Rickmyer, a Level Three Sex Offender and molester of minors, has made something of a career of filing frivolous litigation against his Northside neighbors (et al) for, it would appear, purposes of intimidation and hateful spite against the world...
This went on for so long that eventually Hennepin County District Court declared Rickmyer a "Rule 9" frivolous litigant, unable to file lawsuits without a lawyer to sign off on the filings.
But Rickmyer has not been completely stopped. He has started making worthless filings in Federal Court, and has tried repeatedly to appeal the district court order declaring him a frivolous litigant, an order which grew out of litigation filed against this blogger and others.
Recently, Rickmyer tried to appeal the Rule 9 order AGAIN. His filings were so similar to previous filings it was truly zombie-like; something dead that comes back to life. And, like the correct procedure to put down a zombie and make sure it doesn't come rise up again, the court system administered a "double tap."
* In its first order, (see link above) the Court of Appeals pointed out the same precise issue had already been ruled upon in May of 2013. All the same, the parties to the proceeding were invited to file "informal memoranda" about the jurisdiction question, though if any defendant files anything...well, I'm guessing the "copy and paste" function will be performing most of the argument.
* In its second order, (see link above) the court denied Rickmyer "IFP" status, which is Rickmyer's not-so-secret weapon. Only because he is a pauper is Rickmyer allowed, over and over, to make filings in the court free of court fees. For most paupers, this would be a rare event occurring only when forced to confront a pressing issue in the courts, but for Rickmyer IFP status has become a lifestyle choice.
Like being a pedophile.
So when the Court of Appeals tells Rickmyer, in effect, "Do Not Pass Go Unless You Pay $500" (and then another $550!) the Court of Appeals has, quite likely, decided the issue without any defendants filing any "informal memoranda" at all.
The only question becomes...
How long will the courts continue to tolerate Rickmyer's filings in regard to the issue of why can't he make filings? Is Rickmyer allowed one freebie a year to keep trying to overturn the Rule 9 order? Or, at some point, will this order grow more teeth, like we saw when Rickmyer was incarcerated the first time he violated the order, soon after it was born?
Now comes the part of the blog posting where I mention, for the dozenth time, that Rickmyer has been wanted on a "non-extraditable" warrant out of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, since around 1990.
Rickmyer committed a sex offense in Oklahoma County, exposing himself to some young boys. While subject to conditions of the court following his plea that offense, Rickmyer left Oklahoma and (so far as I can determine) never returned to Oklahoma. Instead, he went to Minnesota, committed further sex offenses, and even did time in a Minnesota prison. Eventually, he was declared a "Level Three" sex offender, the kind most dangerous and most likely to reoffend if not closely monitored.
The old warrant has never gone away. But because it's a "non-extraditable" warrant, it will only be enforced if Rickmyer returns to Oklahoma.
Thus it's not so much a warrant as a "de facto" order of exile. Pretty convenient how that works out.
And the situation is not unique to Rickmyer. USA Today recently wrote an article ("A License To Commit Crime") about wanted felons whose whereabouts are known, but nobody is looking for them because the states issuing the warrants don't want the felons back.
Apparently Philadelphia is the worst offender in this regard.
(Dramatic announcer voice...)
IS THIS THE END FOR "SPANKY" PETE RICKMYER?????