A federal judge recently dismissed all claims in a federal lawsuit by Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer, a Level Three Sex Offender who is notorious for filing baseless and frivolous litigation. Rickmyer is currently wanted on a "non-extraditable" warrant in Oklahoma over a sex offense involving exposing himself to minors but Oklahoma (the very epicenter of folksy wisdom in the spirit of Will Rogers) doesn't want Rickmyer back.
The dismissal of Rickmyer's most recent lawsuit took place on February 5 but it's difficult to get very excited about this kind of thing or find it blogworthy. When ISN'T Spanky Pete filing a lawsuit? And when...
...isn't a judge dismissing the lawsuit? That's like saying yesterday, in Minnesota, it snowed a lot. But if somebody's going to sue this blog and if some judge is going to all the trouble of writing an order, I really should drag out a musty old stock photo and say, I don't know, SOMETHING.
Prior to the dismissal of the lawsuit, a federal magistrate wrote a 56-page report and recommendation saying the lawsuit should be dismissed, click here for that. The order dismissing the lawsuit (click here for that) closely following the recommendations of the magistrate.
Defendant David Schooler, a prominent attorney who previously represented JACC in a baseless lawsuit filed by suspended attorney Jill Clark, was granted a $5,000 judgment against Peter Rickmyer for "Rule 11" sanctions as part of the same final order. JNS blog suspects that if Spanky Pete has anything under his mattress, it wouldn't be $5,000 to pay off those sanctions. The judge's order actually made mention of the futility of monetary sanctions against somebody like Peter Rickmyer but the federal judge wasn't quite ready to implement a blanket ban on Rickmyer filing stuff in federal court...like he's been banned under Rule 9 in Hennepin County District Court.
Stay tuned for the next chapter. This sad fiasco won't be ending anytime soon.
Ha ha ha!
ReplyDeleteWhat a moron. He needs to find a more constructive hobby or go back to making license plates. Maybe the Nut House is a valid option!
ReplyDeleteDo you know if any money has been received by the defendants or their attorneys from the plaintiffs in any of these spurious law suits? I think the plaintiffs in the JACC lawsuit (Brown v Browne) were supposed to pay about $85,000.
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head, I can't think of one thin dime that has changed hands.
ReplyDelete