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
DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DISMISS
Presiding Judge: The Honorable Antradz
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
The plaintiff and counsel in CCRC-CV-1308 hereby declare opposition to the defense’s
opposition of the plaintiff and counsel’s previous opposition of the motion made by the
defendant and counsel to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Firstly, we argue that since no case number was included in the defense’s opposition to
our opposition, that their opposition should be deemed invalid. The rules of procedure require
certain formats be used, and this was clearly not followed by the District Attorney’s Office as
they failed to even include a case number meaning there is no way to be sure they were even
talking about this case.
Once again the defendant and counsel have made the argument that the clause “May
contain” means that the plaintiff was in violation of his department’s non-disclosure agreement.
Plaintiff and counsel continue to maintain that there was ABSOLUTELY NO RADIO TRAFFIC
contained in the GIF that the plaintiff sent to his friend. Therefore this is not a case of “may have
contained” this is a case of “did not contain”. There was no radio traffic in that GIF, and the
plaintiff and counsel maintain that there is no way that radio traffic will “magically” show up in
that GIF as there was never any radio traffic in that GIF to begin with.
Plaintiff and counsel also contest that even if there was radio traffic in the GIF, which
there was not, that it should not have resulted in disciplinary action as there have been numerous
other examples of violations of this that have gone unpunished. One simply has to do a quick
search on YouTube to find examples of this. However, this is largely irrelevant as it does not
matter since the plaintiff did not include any radio communications in his GIF, period. There was
no possibility of there being radio communications included as the plaintiff is a reasonable
individual who made a prudent effort to be sure that he did not reveal any radio communications.
The defense has made the statement that “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 and counsel
counter this by affirming that while plaintiff and counsel would ideally wish to claim monetary
damages, even if monetary damages cannot be claimed, the court could still take action to restore
the plaintiff’s employment within the Palmer Police Department. Therefore the case still serves a
valid purpose, as the court still does have the ability to provide remedy to return the plaintiff to
his pre-injury condition.
The defense goes on to allege that “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 Attorney’s Office has the implied powers to prosecute provisions under
Chapter 4: CRIMINAL TORTS.” Plaintiff and counsel counter this claim by pointing out several
facts. First of all, the County Charter, specifically RCC § 7.03 does not anywhere even mention
the category of “Criminal Torts”, and nowhere does RCC § 7.03 declare the District Attorney to
have the exclusive ability to act as a plaintiff in cases involving “Criminal Torts”. Secondly, the
plaintiff and counsel also question whether the “Criminal Torts” are true criminal law, as they are
listed as torts, and they are not listed in the Criminal Code. RCC § 7.03 does give the District
Attorney’s Office the power to represent the people of the County of Ridgeway in cases
involving violations of Ridgeway law. However, counsel for the plaintiff is not representing the
people of the County of Ridgeway, but rather a private citizen; therefore the counsel for the
plaintiff is not infringing on the exclusive authority of the District Attorney as the the counsel for
the plaintiff is not representing the people of Ridgeway and this is a civil not a criminal case.
The District Attorney’s Office states in their opposition that they have the implied power
to prosecute the “Criminal Torts” despite there being no statutory provisions that would be
implied to prohibit other parties from filing cases under that category. Once again, plaintiff and
counsel raise the fact that the “Criminal Torts” although they carry potential jail time, DO NOT
consist as a part of the Criminal Code. Plaintiff and counsel understand that prosecuting Criminal
Code violations is under the authority of the DAO, but the violations alleged here are not part of
the Criminal Code and therefore due to a lack of statutory prohibition on plaintiff and counsel
filing this case this case should be considered fully valid and allowed to proceed to trial. Plaintiff
and counsel have made it very clear that there is no reason they lack authority to bring forward
this case.
It is true that the legislature could change in the future the status of “Criminal Torts” and
who may file cases regarding them. But at this time there exist no prohibitions that would
prevent the plaintiff and counsel from bringing this case to trial.
The defense and counsel also allege that based on a typo made by plaintiff and counsel in
the initial Civil Complaint that the NDA was violated. Plaintiff and counsel dispute this by
asserting once again, that no law enforcement radio traffic was ever depicted in the GIF sent to
the plaintiff’s friend by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and counsel have direct evidence that they are
prepared to present at trial that will demonstrate that absolutely no radio traffic was revealed in
the GIF. Plaintiff and counsel do admit that plaintiff and counsel made a small typo in the Civil
Complaint that made it appear that the GIF did actually include radio traffic, however this was a
type and as mentioned previously plaintiff and counsel have evidence to prove that there was no
radio traffic ever depicted. Plaintiff and counsel apologize for making this small type, and for
any confusion this small typo may have caused the defense’s counsel, however we all make
mistakes as proven by the defense’s counsel failure to remember to even list a case number on
their last opposition.
The defense and counsel also allege that by displaying “background checking
information” that the plaintiff violated the non-disclosure agreement. First of all, all of the
background checking information is publicly available and is not protected by any law, and only
the NDA itself prohibits its release. As such the plaintiff is protected under DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY v. MacLEAN 714 F. 3d. 1301 which protects whistleblowers who
release information as a whistleblower unless the release of such information is explicitly
prohibited by law. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. MacLEAN
714 F. 3d. 1301 established that a rule or regulation, such as an NDA, prohibiting the release of
information does not prevent a whistleblower from releasing information. As such the plaintiff’s
actions were lawful, and plaintiff and counsel are prepared to demonstrate in court that the
plaintiff acted lawfully and that his termination was wrongful.
Overall, plaintiff and counsel firmly OPPOSE both the Motion to Dismiss and all
opposition to opposing the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff and counsel hope the court rules wisely
and lawfully and allows for the plaintiff and counsel to present their case in a court of law and
demonstrate both that the plaintiff’s actions were lawful and that the plaintiff’s termination from
the Palmer Police Department was wrong.
DATED: June 19th, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
jedistormtrooper0625, Esq.
Counsel For Plaintiff
/s/ jedistormtrooper0625
