THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY COUNTY COURT
Tomskipetski5,
-against-
LewisMedvedeva, In His Official and
Personal Capacity as Chief of the Palmer
Police Department
Co-Defendant.
&
Palmer Police Department
Co-Defendant.
Case No. CCRC-CV-1308
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DISMISS
Presiding Judge: The Honorable Antradz
ARGUMENTS
On behalf of my client Tomskipetski5, the plaintiff in CCRC-CV-1308, I hereby declare
opposition to any and all efforts by the defendant and the defendant’s legal counsel to dismiss the
case. We oppose any form of dismissal at this time of writing, whether it be with or without
prejudice. We do not believe that the defendant and counsel have sufficient grounds for the case
to be dismissed.
First of all, regarding the claim that my client violated the N.D.A. in place with his
employer, that is simply a false claim that we have evidence to refute. Counsel for the defendant
have attempted to make the argument that a “May contain” in the agreement greatly changed the
meaning of the agreement, however I strongly disagree with that assertion. It is not reasonable to
state that the term “May contain” should refer to any single incident in which there exists the
mere possibility of something. Rather “may contain” reasonably would refer to a situation in
which there is a high likelihood of it existing. My client is a responsible citizen and was a
responsible peace officer prior to his unjust termination, and he was well aware that there was
ABSOLUTELY NO RADIO TRAFFIC contained in the Graphical Interchange Format (GIF)
that he sent to his friend. The GIF also did not contain warrant information or other such
information as explicitly listed by the N.D.A. We have evidence of all of this that we are ready to
present in trial, and as such it would be wholly inappropriate to dismiss the case at this point in
time.
Secondly, regarding the alleged “Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” declared by the
defendant’s counsel, the plaintiff and counsel also dispute this. The court still has full jurisdiction
over this, and the ability to issue injunctions. The plaintiff and counsel will comply with the law
in what remedies can be authorized by the court, and we understand that the letter of apology
may not be possible due to the ridiculous and overbearing 5 R. Stat. § 301. The primary purpose
of this case was not to seek a letter of apology, and this case should be able to continue just fine
without a letter of apology. The counsel for the defendant also made the claim that no monetary
damages can be sought in this case. To counter this claim I would make the argument that 5 R.
Stat. § 303 is overbroad as due to its wording it prevents monetary damages from being claimed
in literally any case where the government has any level of involvement, which is a ridiculous
and downright unrealistic notion. This notion also goes against the fact that defendant
LewisMedvedeva is being sued in both his personal *and* official capacities; and 5 R. Stat. §
304 states that any lawsuit against an official in their official capacity shall be considered a case
against the government, but ZERO mention is made of suits against their personal capacity, and
as such we still feel that we legally can claim damages from the Chief of Police personally. Even
if the court were to rule that monetary damages could not be granted, which we feel is a stance
that it could be unwise for the court to take; the court could still take action to restore the
plaintiff’s position within the Palmer Police Department meaning that the case still serves an
extremely valid purpose regardless despite that we have just proved that it is very likely possible
for us to claim monetary damages. Additionally damages could also be claimed under 5 R. Stat.
§ 214 that WOULD allow for monetary damages to be claimed, if the court were to declare an
inability to claim monetary damages from the other torts and were to allow for violation of 5 R.
Stat. § 214 to be added to the list of torts which is something that the plaintiff and counsel are
willing to propose as necessary.
The counsel for the defendant has also attempted to claim a “Lack of Statutory
Authority” declaring that the County Charter only gives the ability to file for “Criminal Torts” to
the District Attorney’s Office. As a counter to this we attest that the torts are still civil, not
criminal, violations and that § 3.07 of the County Chart does NOT anywhere state that the
District Attorney’s Office is the sole entity with the authority with the ability to prosecute for
“Criminal Torts”. The “Criminal Torts” also are not included in the Criminal Code, which is
considered to be the penal code for the County of Ridgeway and the only place where criminal
violations are found, and no where in the County Code of Statutes does it state that the District
Attorney’s Office has the sole authority to sue for violation of the “Criminal Torts”. This may be
a failure of the legislature to not be clear enough in the delegation of authority, but regardless the
law is the law, and this is what the law says at this time in Ridgeway County. Additionally, even
if this were true, which we contest it not to be, the plaintiff would still be eligible for damages
under 5 R. Stat. § 214. In fact 5 R. Stat. § 214 even grants us the ability to still demand that a
letter of apology be written by the Chief of Police, and would allow for monetary damages to be
claimed, even if monetary damages are prohibited by other sections of the County Code of
Statutes. So counsel for the plaintiff would be willing to actually request that violation of 5 R.
Stat. § 214 be added to the list of torts violated if the Honorable Judge were willing to accept
such a request, but as stated earlier even with the current torts there are still remedies that the
court can impose.
Lastly, counsel for the defendant has attempted to claim that the case is unlikely to
succeed on its merits. This is an assertion that the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel believe to be
false. We believe that our case is likely to succeed under its merits, and that we have built a
strong case with strong evidence as we plan to demonstrate in trial. First of all, the counsel for
the defendant tries to once again claim violation of the N.D.A. which we strongly dispute, and
which we are prepared to provide evidence to the contrary. That means that if the N.D.A. was not
violated then no rights to employment or security clearance were ever waived. Next of all,
counsel for the plaintiff states that the termination can only be overturned if one of at least
several conditions is true. We fully agree with this, and we filed suit as we strongly believe and
have evidence to support that the termination of my client was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse
of discretion. We have proof that the department did not have solid grounds to terminate my
client, and that the Chief of Police abused his power as Chief of Police when he authorized the
termination of my client. The counsel for the plaintiff also then mentions the search agreement,
despite the fact that the search agreement was never even violated by my client, meaning that is
completely and utterly irrelevant.
Overall, we believe that we have strong grounds for a lawsuit, and for the reasons stated
above we firmly OPPOSE any effort at this time by the defendant and/or defendant’s counsel to
dismiss the case. We hope the Honorable Judge Antradz will use good judicial discretion in
comparing our arguments, and will see that the letter of the law favors the plaintiff.
DATED: June 17th, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
jedistormtrooper0625
Counsel for Plaintiff
/s/ jedistormtrooper0625
