Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
6,364 characters extracted
—
- 1 -
OPPOSIITON TO PLAINTIFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jaredft45
Assistant District Attorney
SITEOWNER
District Attorney
Ridgeway County District Attorney’s Office
1 Jackson St
Palmer, RC 70363
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE RIDGEWAY COUNTY COURT
Tomskipetski5,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
LewisMedvedeva, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AND PERSONAL CAPACITY;
PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Judge: Honorable Antradz
Trial Date: None Set
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
The Plaintiff’s counsel claims that the Plaintiff, Tomskipetski5, was “well aware” that there was
no active radio traffic, contained in the GIF. Plaintiff’s counsel claims that the GIF did not contain
any warrant information or information explicitly stated by the Non-Disclosure-Agreement, signed
by the Plaintiff.
The defense asserts, again, that because the Non-Disclosure-Agreement contains a advisory
statement, by the main clause of “May contain”, the advisory statements signifies that employees
can not disclose radio communications, because it “May contain” active radio traffic, warrant
information, and/or background checking information. The “May contain” clause within the Non-
Disclosure-Agreement creates a future possibility, which employees who signed the agreement
- 2 -
OPPOSIITON TO PLAINTIFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
must be mindful of. The Plaintiff’s counsel claims that monetary damages could still be claimed,
but under the tort of: 5 R. Stat § 214, and that the courts would still be able to restore the Plaintiffs
positions within Palmer Police Department.
The Defense asserts that the plaintiff would not claim ANY monetary damages under 5 R. Stat §
214, due to the fact that the tort would be inapplicable because the tort was not listed, or filed
against the Defendant, Lewismedvedeva. Whether or not the Plaintiffs and his counsel, has sued
the Defendant in his Official and Individual capacity, it has been explicit stated under 5 R. Stat §
303, that monetary damages can not be awarded in cases against the government, where the
government is a party, or when the government has intervened. 5 R. Stat § 304 reaffirms 5 R. Stat
§ 303, due to the fact that because LewMedvedeva is being sued in his official capacity, the case
against him shall be construed as a case against the government.
The Plaintiff’s counsel claims that statutes listed under Chapter 4: CRIMINAL TORTS, are still
considered civil torts and that the County Charter does not explicitly states that the District
Attorney’s Office has solely authority or power to prosecute under Chapter 4: CRIMINAL
TORTS.
The defense asserts that, under Chapter 4: CRIMINAL TORTS, 5 R. Stat. § 401 - 5 R. Stat. § 404,
list criminal penalties such as jail time. Under chapter 4, it does not mention or states any civil
remedies or damages that may be awarded or granted upon relief requested by the Plaintiff’s and
their counsel. The defense also asserts that the Plaintiff’s counsel implies “private prosecution”
when litigating government employees under Chapter 4. Private prosecution is inapplicable, and
cannot be done within the County of Ridgeway due to the fact that there is no statute or legislative
provision that permits it. We wish to note that a 'prosecuting authority' includes, but is not limited
to, an entity which has a statutory power to prosecute. It is clear that the Plaintiff and his counsel
lack statutory power to litigate under Chapter 4: CRIMINAL TORTS. We also wish to note that
RCC § 7.03 establishes the powers to the District Attorney’s Office to prosecute criminal violations
and seek criminal penalties of statutes, regulations, and county charters. It’s clear that the District
- 3 -
OPPOSIITON TO PLAINTIFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorney’s Office has the implied powers to prosecute provisions under Chapter 4: CRIMINAL
TORTS.
The Plaintiff also contests that the case has merit despite the fact that a breach of contract has
occurred twice within this case. Citing the Plaintiff “That means that if the N.D.A. was not violated
then no rights to employment or security clearance were ever waived.” The foregoing statement
made by the Plaintiff contradicts the civil complaint wherein the Plaintiff asserted that he felt that
they had to provide a GIF of radio traffic to their friend “the plaintiff felt he had to provide him
with the GIF ..[] that depicted Palmer Police and other law enforcement radio traffic..” and then
goes onto assert that they did in fact provide it “The plaintiff provided this piece of evidence to
assist his friend,” These two statements directly contradict the assertion that they did not breach
the NDA. The fact that they admitted to breaching the contract within their own civil complaint
rightfully forms the basis for the Defendant to request a dismissal. Furthermore, not only the radio
clause (DA-9.2) of the NDA was breached, but DA-9.3 was breached as well. Citing DA-9.3 “I
understand and hereby agree to not disclose leaderboards, active warrants, background checking
information..” The Plaintiff’s GIF has an arrest menu open which provides a brief background
checking information: citizenship status & records, that they shared without authorization. One of
the integral parts of a background check process involves a citizenship status confirmation and
prior records of an individual - an undeniable fact, which the Plaintiff overlooked. Thusly, the
Defendant(s) were well within their rights to initiate a termination of employment pursuant to
clause DA-9.5 “I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the
termination of any security clearances I hold; [].. or termination of my employment or other
relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances.”
- 4 -
OPPOSIITON TO PLAINTIFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: June 19, 2021 Respectfully Submitted.
Jaredft45
Assistant District Attorney
SITEOWNER
District Attorney
Ridgeway County District Attorney’s Office
1 Jackson St
Palmer, RC 70363
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant
Document record
File size
173.2 KB
Uploaded
Jun 15, 2021 12:00 PM
Filed
Jun 15, 2021 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
Tomskipetski5
Notes
Archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/b2HNu9eh)
