ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
JAMESGARDAI
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
CLAIM NO.
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
CLAIM INFORMATION
Agency: Palmer Police Department
Type of Action Administrative Demerit
IA Reference No. PSD-26-002; PSD-26-003
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Petitioner, as an employee of the Palmer Police Department, was investigated in
two matters: PSD-26-002 and PSD-26-003 (Appendix A and Appendix C, respectively).
2. In both investigations by the Professional Standards Division of the Palmer Police
Department, charges were sustained and Petitioner was issued two recorded warnings—one for
each case.
3. In both cases, the Palmer Police Department violated standard internal affairs
procedure.
ARGUMENT
I. In Regards To Both Cases
First, the Palmer Police Department combined both the investigatory interview and the
pre-discipline hearing under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532. That is
right. The facts of the case before the Palmer Police Department were not even known. A hearing
cannot be conducted before an investigation has produced any specific factual findings. The
Department had no specific clearly established facts for Petitioner to defend against. Without any
specific facts being found by an investigation, an internal affairs office cannot charge an
employee. The facts of a case must first be established. Then, the charges are proposed. And
finally, the punishment is proposed. Once the punishment is proposed, a Department may then
proceed to a pre-discipline hearing under Loudermill. Instead of doing this, the Department
confused the investigatory interview of Petitioner, which exists to establish the facts of the case,
with the pre-discipline hearing. The investigatory interview provides an employer a chance to
gather facts about what happened from an employee and any other witnesses, and only after the
investigation has occurred, can an investigator review all the factual information and determine
the charges.
II. PSD-26-003
Ignoring this plain procedural error which resulted in Petitioner not being able to respond
to adequate charges rooted in established facts, PSD-26-003 is twofold erroneous because the
Department utilized an illegal workaround to their code of conduct. The Department sustained
the charge of §1.11 - VIOLATION OF ON-DUTY STANDARDS against Petitioner. In doing so,
the Department alleged that Petitioner violated Policy 205.2 of the Palmer Police Department
Handbook, which provides:
All Patrol Officers are obligated by policy to maintain a professional outlook on the department
in the means of their behavior while patrolling.
All Patrol Officers are to show respect to those they are serving within the community, those who
are on team with them, as well as members of other departments at all times. Arguing or fighting
with other departments and their employees unnecessarily is prohibited.”
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 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. It is not a disciplinary policy that “explicitly
prescribes the degree of punitive action.” 2 R. Stat. § 3102 (emphasis added). In fact, Policy
205.2 provides no punitive action. There is no indication that violating Policy 205.2
automatically triggers a violation of §1.11. Therefore, invoking §1.11 to punish a violation of
Policy 205.2, when Policy 205.2 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. This principle was
affirmed in JamesGardai v. Palmer Police Department, No. RSC-CV-0417 (Rid. Superior Ct.
2025) where the Administrative Court held that Ҥ 200.2(H), as applied to punish conduct not
expressly defined as an offense in the Code of Conduct, is declared invalid and unenforceable.”
August 6th Decision and Order.
But the utilization of Policy 205.2 is also in violation of Loudermill, which provides that
“[t]he tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him.”
Policy 205.2 was never provided to Petitioner (Appendix B). Petitioner had no idea that this
charge was being used against him, even if it was valid in the first place.
PSD-26-003 was further in violation of standard internal affairs investigatory process
because the Department failed to investigate all visibly present lay witnesses. See 8 R. Stat. §
2404 (“All visible or obviously present lay witnesses shall be interviewed.”) At 0:30 of one the
complainant’s video (Appendix E), Deputy uhKiwuu of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office is
visibly present, observing the scene in front of them. At 2:45 of the same video, ii_Officerlawz is
visibly present, observing the scene in front of them. At 3:12 of the same video a separate transit
operator is visibly present, observing the scene in front of them. The Department never
interviewed these witnesses. If they did, they did not provide Petitioner with their statements in
accordance with 8 R. Stat. § 2404.
III. PSD-26-002
PSD-26-002 is also erroneous because the Professional Standards Division, acting as the
internal affairs office of the Palmer Police Department, exceeded its administrative role by
making and relying upon conclusive determinations of law in sustaining charges against
Petitioner. Although an internal affairs body may evaluate whether conduct complied with
departmental policy, it is not vested with judicial authority to conclusively determine questions of
constitutional or statutory legality. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); O’Connor v.
Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932). Yet that is precisely what
the Professional Standards Division did here: rather than confining itself to whether Petitioner
violated a clearly defined departmental rule, it treated legal conclusions—such as whether a
traffic stop constituted an “unlawful detainment” under governing law—as dispositive
administrative findings. That exceeds the proper function of an employer-conduct investigation.
Because the Department’s findings rested on legal adjudications beyond its authority, its
sustained conclusions are arbitrary, ultra vires, and void.
PSD-26-003 was further in violation of standard internal affairs investigatory process
because the Department failed to investigate all visibly present lay witnesses. See 8 R. Stat. §
2404 (“All visible or obviously present lay witnesses shall be interviewed.”). There are multiple
lay witnesses present in the video attached with the complaint against Petitioner (Appendix F).
Yet, only two of them: Arthur_Chen and Dariel_Powell, were interviewed. The Department
never interviewed the rest of the visibly present witnesses. If they did, they did not provide
Petitioner with their statements in accordance with 8 R. Stat. § 2404.
DEMAND FOR REMEDY
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays to this Court that it enters judgment in its favor, and
enter the following relief:
1. A declaratory judgment declaring that Petitioner’s recorded warnings are in
violation of law;
2. Injunctive relief vacating and expunging Petitioner’s recorded warnings; and
3. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: 04/04/2026
/s/ JAMESGARDAI
Newfounding Father
HOUSE OF GARDAI1
Rid. Bar. No. 10244
D: fishfromocean
Counsel of Record
1 An unincorporated association.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HpUygRR5dmD2tYfeEs7F9GhhWR__dR3b/view?usp=
drive_link
B) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZGZpXxDm4nPqXeZ1Y90uusPsi5sXWHSt/view?usp=d
rive_link
C) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tBOojWaKPMw1OzmAouOW3Pt1IpZKwx_C/view?usp
=drive_link
D) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mdyn9Iemsn93hH1eHbm6DwY-WLf6WRid/view?usp=
drive_link
E) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmtuELEhOo
F) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-hE6jwT9BU
