ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
CHARLESLXV
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
CLAIM NO.
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
CLAIM INFORMATION
Agency: Ridgeway National Guard
Type of Action Involuntary General Discharge
IA Reference No. 034-0329-MPI-RNG
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Petitioner was a guardsman and employee of the Ridgeway National Guard,
holding the rank of Private in the 301st Infantry Brigade.
2. On about the date of April 11th, 2026, the Ridgeway National Guard’s internal
affairs office—the Military Police Investigations—received a complaint regarding Petitioner’s
on-duty conduct as a Private.
3. On April 11th the Military Police Investigations Unit conducted an interview of
Petitioner.
4. They cited two alleged violations: OPREG 3002 and OPREG 1005.
5. They provided two pieces of evidence: a video evidence of the alleged conduct
and an interview with the complainant—nothing else.
6. After providing this information, the Military Police Investigations questioned
Petitioner regarding the incident. This was his only opportunity to provide a defense.
ARGUMENT
I. The Investigation Was Deficient
First, the Ridgeway National Guard 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 Ridgeway National Guard 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. The Military Police Investigations Usurped the Role of Article III Courts
The action is also erroneous because the Military Police Investigations, acting as the
internal affairs office of the Ridgeway National Guard, exceeded its administrative role by
making and relying upon conclusive determinations of law in sustaining charges against
Petitioner—specifically regarding the sustained “murder” offense. 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 law and whether there was legal
justification or excuse for conduct. 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 Military Police Investigations: rather than confining itself to whether Petitioner violated a
clearly defined departmental rule, it treated legal conclusions—specifically, whether there was a
legal, justifiable reason for Petitioner killing an individual driving a vehicle at him at full speed,
armed with an illegal weapon—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.
III. The Military Police Investigations Failed to Allow Petitioner to Give a
Defense to the Complaint
The investigation and resulted action was further in violation of standard investigatory
procedure, pursuant to statute. The Ridgeway National Guard uses a google form to receive their
internal affairs complaints. This filled out google form, upon information and belief, is directly
and automatically spit out into a respective channel for the Military Police Investigations via a
webhook. This complaint is a “statement[] of the complainant” which “shall be provided to the
accused before he is provided the opportunity to make a defense.” 8 R. Stat. § 2404. These
statements were not provided to Petitioner.
But this is not the only flaw; because this original complaint and statements therein were
not provided, Petitioner could not have possibly known of the specific allegations against him
and been “provided the ability to provide a defense as to the complaint.” Id.
IV. There Was No Explanation of the Evidence Provided to Petitioner
Even considering the only evidence provided—albeit deficient and not enough—there
was no explanation of the evidence provided to Petitioner. The Ridgeway National Guard 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; see also
JamesGardai v. Palmer Police Department, No. RSC-CV-0417 (Rid. Adm. Ct. 2025). A mere
data dump with no explanation, as done here, does not satisfy the Loudermill standard.
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 involuntary general discharge
was done in violation of law;
2. Injunctive relief vacating and expunging involunaty general discharge and
reinstating him back to duty; and
3. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: 04/18/2026
/s/ JAMESGARDAI
Ayatollah Rabbi Seyed James Gardai, MD,
PhD, DDS, JD, OD, EdD, PharmD, DBA,
DVM, DMD, DOM, EngD, DLitt, Esq.
Rid. Bar. No. 10244
HOUSE OF GARDAI1
Newfounding Father
Gardai Island
United States Virgin Islands
D: fishfromocean
Counsel of Record
1 An unincorporated association.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jKs5SYfqO9QpW0dihZEx-oT4AdGe1J32/view?usp=sha
ring
