ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
JAMESGARDAI
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
CLAIM NO.
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
CLAIM INFORMATION
Agency: Palmer Police Department
Type of Action Arbitrary Punishment—2 R. Stat. § 3135 et seq. / Administrative
Demerit—2 R. Stat. § 3115
IA Reference No. IAD-25-0002
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. The Background
1. On or about the date of July 13th, 2025, Petitioner, the Captain of the Palmer
Police Department’s Special Operations Bureau, was patrolling in Palmer, Ridgeway
County—specifically at the Ridgeway National Guard Palmer Recruitment Office.
2. There, Petitioner encountered tyylies, and other people, including other
guardsmen.1
3. Petitioner and tyylies would encounter each other and engage in argument and
conversation.
4. Later during their encounter, a vehicle operated by a third party (“ the rammer”)
would come, and in a seemingly intentional manner, ram Petitioner and tyylies, who were on a
sidewalk.
1 As of July 28th, 2025, tyylies has changed his ROBLOX username to NYS4L.
5. Petitioner discharged his firearm at the rammer in an act of self defense.
6. tyylies would then remove the rammer from their vehicle, tase them, and take
them into custody.
7. tyylies would then proceed to yell at Petitioner, arguing that the suspect is in his
custody, and not tyylies’, despite the fact that tyylies removed the rammer from their vehicle,
tased them, and then handcuffed them.
8. tyylies would proceed to, on multiple instances, place the rammer in Petitioner’s
vehicle.
9. Petitioner told tyylies numerous times to stop and transferred the rammer to the
vehicle of tyylies. This would happen back and forth numerous times.
10. Petitioner then warned tyylies if he were to continue in this course of action that
he would be cited for failure to comply.
11. tyylies, despite the warnings of Petitioner, continued to engage in this course of
action.
12. Petitioner, therefore, having given warning of the unlawful conduct, cited tyylies.
13. Immediately after citing tyylies, Petitioner stepped into the driver seat of his
vehicle and started driving away.
14. As he was driving away, tyylies unholstered his TB26 Taser and fired at the
Petitioner and his vehicle.
15. Petitioner circled back and then proceeded to cite tyylies for Assault for that
action.
II. The Complaint
16. On or about the date of July 13th, 2025, tyylies would file an Internal Affairs
Complaint with the Palmer Police Department Internal Affairs Division for the events of the
incident, stating:
I was talking to a guardsmen by the name of police12w and jokingly told them to take off their
drill instructor hat. PPD Captain JamesGardai, with no relevance to the situation, told me to
make the guardsmen do JJs. I begin to conversate with the Captain, jokingly arguing with him
and I am thinking we're on the same page here. Later on, the captain does start to make racist
remarks which I usually don't care to report about because I thought he was joking. A bit later,
while we're still talking to each other, a civilian comes in and supposedly rams us while we are
on the sidewalk. Captain JamesGardai is the first to engage as he begins to shoot the suspect,
damaging them a bit before pulling them out. After I began to pay attention to the current scene,
I begin to chase after the suspect with my taser and successfully tase them, detaining them. I
gave the suspect to James after I told him I had no PC due to me not paying attention and he was
the first one to engage. The captain refused and proceeded to fail to do their duties as a Palmer
Police Officer even though this is their jurisdiction and responsibility. I, as an MP SFC do not
focus on arresting suspects as my primary job is to police and protect the guard. Not palmer nor
anywhere else within the State. The captain proceeded to cite me for failure to comply because
according to him, he told me not to put the suspect in his vehicle even though that wasn't my
suspect and I had no PC. After he cited me for FTC, the captain quickly fled in his vehicle and I
attempted to tase him but he was already gone. While I was in the middle of shock that the
captain actually decided to cite an MP Officer, he came back around and cited me again for
assault due to me attempting to tase him even though he fled.
17. Pursuant to 8 R. Stat. § 2402, the Palmer Police Department Internal Affairs
Division conducted a summary review and disposition of the complaint. The summary
disposition yielded a sustained verdict.
18. The charges alleged against Petitioner were PPD Code of Conduct §§ 200.1(A),
200.1(B), 200.1(C), 200.1(E), 200.2(B), 200.2(H), and 200.2(T).
19. The Palmer Police Department Internal Affairs Division, represented by
then-Lieutenant iiSandwich_Lawz, proceeded to invite Petitioner to the Palmer Police
Department’s Internal Affairs Division Discord Server.2
20. iiSandwich_Lawz added Petitioner to a ticket, provided the case evidence sheet
regarding the incident—an essential data dump of everything Internal Affairs has obtained—and
then told Petitioner to respond to the allegations in the complaint.
21. Petitioner, after consultation with his attorney, gave his defense to the complaint.
22. iiSandwich_Lawz concluded the interview shortly thereafter.
23. On or about the date of July 19th, 2025, iiSandwich_Lawz would finish the
investigation, and along with supervisory consent from then-Captain zac2524 of the Internal
Affairs Division and consultation with Commander o72yss, and Chief of Police SOURCED_V,
issued a written warning and demotion to Petitioner.
24. The Internal Affairs Division concluded that Petitioner is exonerated of the
charges of PPD Code of Conduct §§ 200.1(C), 200.1(E), 200.2(B), and 200.2(H).
25. The Internal Affairs Division concluded that the charges of PPD Code of Conduct
§§ 200.1(A), 200.1(B), and 200.2(H) are sustained.
26. As for §§ 200.1(A) and 200.1(B), the Internal Affairs Division issued a written
warning.
27. As for § 200.2(H), the Internal Affairs Division issued a demotion, demoting
Petitioner to Lieutenant of the Tactical Response Unit.
ARGUMENT
I. § 200.2(H) IS AN UNLAWFUL CODE OF CONDUCT CIRCUMVENTION
The law is simple and clear. The petitioner legally could not and should not have been
disciplined for § 200.2(H). Under 2 R. Stat. § 3102, “[a]ll departments shall publish clear and
unambiguous codes of conduct which explicitly prescribe the degree of punitive action for each
2 Petitioner was already in this server at the time. As the Special Operations Bureau Executive Officer, he oversaw
the Special Investigations Unit, the Tactical Response Unit, and the Internal Affairs Division.
offense. No person shall be held to account for, or bothered with, an ambiguous offense alleged.”
This means that no public employee can be punished for an offense, unless the policy defines
itself as punishable and that the punishment is clearly tied to the offense.
Petitioner concedes that § 200.2(H) does have a wide range of punishments possible and
defined, if broken. Yet, this policy is peculiar.
An individual can be punished, using this policy, for items and policies that are outside of a code
of conduct. Petitioner’s investigative report states that the reason Petitioner was disciplined for §
200.2(H) was because he “violated Department Handbook Policy 207.1 on two separate
occasions within 5 hours.”
Policy 207.1, is more than apparent, a behavioral guideline. It is not a disciplinary policy that
“explicitly prescribes the degree of punitive action.” 2 R. Stat. § 3102 (emphasis added). In fact,
Policy 207.1 provides no punitive action. There is no indication that violating Policy 207.1
automatically triggers a violation of § 200.2(H). Therefore, invoking § 200.2(H) to punish a
violation of Policy 207.1, when Policy 207.1 isn’t even a prescribed offense, is circular and more
than blatantly improper. Essentially, what the Palmer Police is telling Petitioner is, “Hey, you
didn’t violate a punishable rule, but you violated a guideline, so you’ll be punished under a
different rule that doesn’t say anything about that guideline.” This is in violation of the
requirement that codes of conduct must be “clear and unambiguous.” 2 R. Stat. § 3102.
II. THE PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS
Procedural due process is important in our society. Yet, the Internal Affairs Division of
the Palmer Police Department thought it was okay to just throw it out the window.
A. No Real Notice of the Charges Was Given Pertinent to § 200.2(H)
First, even if this Court would entertain the absurd charge that § 200.2(H) is, it would
still fail because the Palmer Police Department failed to give Petitioner notice of the charges
prior to discipline. “The tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the
charges against him[.]” Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 at 546 (1985).
Yet, Petitioner was never given the specific charges pertinent to § 200.2(H). § 200.2(H) is
reliance on outside code of conduct charges—at least in Petitioner’s case—and the failure of the
Palmer Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division to give Policy 207.1—the policy used to
sustain § 200.2(H)—is a textbook procedural due process deprivation that this court must
reverse.
B. No Explanation of Evidence Was Given
Second, the Palmer Police Department Internal Affairs Division never explained the
evidence, from their point of view, to Petitioner. “The tenured public employee is entitled to…an
explanation of the employer's evidence[.]” Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546. The only document
provided by Internal Affairs, as stated above, was a case evidence sheet.
[intentionally left blank]
[intentionally left blank]
This case evidence sheet does not provide any explanation of the evidence from Internal Affairs.
It is simply nothing more than a data dump. Loudermill requires more than raw documents and
narratives. The attached summary review report is no better. The only thing the investigator said
regarding the complaint was: “After reviewing the evidence provided, there is enough
information for an investigation to be initiated. Due to the fact that this is an investigation
involving a high-profile member of the Palmer Police Department, the investigation will be
completed by Internal Affairs Command and will involve consultation from the Office of the
Chief and the Department of Justice.” This does not suffice the Loudermill standard. There must
be an actual, meaningful explanation of the evidence.
DEMAND FOR REMEDY
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays to this Court that it enters judgment in its favor, and
enter the following relief:
28. A declaratory judgment, declaring § 200.2(H) an unlawful circumvention of a
code of conduct;
29. A declaratory judgment, declaring Petitioner’s sustained charges a violation of
law;
30. Injunctive relief enjoining § 200.2(H).
31. Injunctive relief reversing Petitioner’s reduction in rank;
32. Injunctive relief reversing Petitioner’s written warning; and
33. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted.
Date: 07/28/2025
_________________________________
JamesGardai, Esq.
Rid. Bar. No. 10244
Palmer, Ridgeway
D: fishfromocean
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) Palmer Police Code of Conduct
B) IAD-25-002 Report
C) Palmer Police Department Index
D) IAD-25-002 Case Evidence Sheet
E) IAD-25-002 Summary Review Report
