ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN RE
JAMESVANCHETTI
Petitioner
Case No. RSC-AD-631
Administrative Claim
CLAIM INFORMATION
Agency: Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Training Center
Type of Action: Dishonorable Discharge; Blacklist; Revocation of Certification
IA Reference Number: N/A
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On June 28, 2021, JamesVanchetti (hereinafter “James”) joined the Sheriff’s
Office.
2. Prior, James had approximately two months of experience in the Palmer Police,
being awarded the Instructor Decoration during his time there.
3. James, being a previously decorated Detective with a good amount of experience,
joined the Criminal Investigative Division (hereinafter “CID”). He also sought and
gained a highly selective candidacy within the Special Response Academy where
he was due to be transferred which was abruptly stopped by his termination and
blacklist.
4. During completion of what CID insiders call “Project Omega,” (CID’s entry level
training program), James was assigned to investigate an entity known as
“L’Unione Corse” as an independent Detective.
5. Through the duration of this investigation, James was a deepcover agent working
on the inside of this organization, collecting critical intelligence for CID.
6. Without James’ deepcover work — partially assisted by informants, the lives of
multiple law enforcement officers and civilians would have been at stake.
7. During the completion of Omega, aspiring Detectives were not only trained, but
also encouraged to use tactics such as lying by omission or deceptiveness in order
to obtain information from a person.
8. While conversing with an informant, James made several remarks that could have
been considered to be “deceptive,” consistent with what he was taught by his
superiors.
9. These remarks were reported to the Sheriff’s Office’s Internal Affairs Unit and
James was investigated.
10. On August 21, 2021, James was removed from the Criminal Investigative
Division, reason being “due to an active Internal Affairs investigation while on a
strict probationary period…”
11. Later, James was contacted by Investigator timmycakes of Internal Affairs,
questioning him about an alleged “blackmail,” in reference to the conversation
with Samianz12, the informant.
12. Shortly thereafter, he received a termination letter from Internal Affairs on August
26, 2021, reason being action in violation of Handbook § 502.1(d).
13. § 501.2(d) reads “Ensure you represent yourself and the department well when
interacting with others over any form of communication.”
14. In communicating with this informant, James was representing himself consistent
with CID training.
15. Internal Affairs investigators are not acquainted with CID training — and cannot
adequately account for the mitigating factors or circumstances motivating James’
conduct.
16. The evidence used in support of James’ termination was a depiction of what the
CID had taught and encouraged Detectives to do.
17. Shortly after termination, James resigned from his position as an Instructor at the
Law Enforcement Training Center in good faith.
18. Soon after that, his certification was revoked for receiving an LTAA ban issued
under false pretenses.
19. This ban was issued after Special Response Team operatives were chasing James.
20. He was being chased due to the issuance of a search warrant - on the sole basis
that he dropped a couple tools onto the ground after a search.
21. These operatives failed to find James, and in 5 minutes he left the game.
22. After receiving this ban, the Law Enforcement Training Center revoked James’
certification for it.
23. Months later, James appealed the ban - the appeal was accepted by the very person
who issued the ban, Sheriff ShadowCulture.
24. James then attempted to appeal his Law Enforcement Training Center revocation
— and was ignored for months.
25. He contacted numerous staff members, among whom were Assistant Director
MaximusGXL, who blocked James after asking for more information on this
appeal.
ARGUMENT
1. §1.7a of the Administrative Procedure Act quotes “It is a violation of law to
blacklist an individual from employment.
a. James was denied his right to administrative review or due process when
abruptly blacklisted from the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office.
2. §1.3c of the Administrative Procedure Act quotes “It is unlawful to arbitrarily, or
without due observance of law, issue a dishonorable discharge.”
a. James was denied his right to administrative review or due process when
abruptly dishonorably discharged from the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s
Office.
3. §1.3b(i-iii) list the statutory requirements to issue a dishonorable discharge -
requirements that have not been met by the Sheriff’s Office.
4. §1.8a notes that “[a]rbitrary punishment is… punishment that takes no accounting
of mitigating factors, circumstances…”
a. James was acting in accordance with CID training.
b. Acknowledging the fact that Internal Affairs investigators have not
undergone CID’s basic entry program, they cannot precisely take into
account the fact that James was taught to conduct himself how he did.
c. James was acting in accordance with an undercover operation he was
running independently.
d. Acknowledging the fact that these are dire circumstances that may very
well prevent the murders of many — including high level government
officials, James was well within his right to use slightly less than normal
procedures in order to safeguard the security and peace of the State.
5. Arbitrary punishment is prohibited by §1.8b.
6. Though the statutes were not in place during James’ blacklist, the maintenance of
bars against his employment — even after the enactment of these statutes,
warrants his application to the case at bar.
7. The Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Training Center
have essentially found James to be disloyal, attaching a badge of infamy upon
him. See Wiemann v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952); see also Peters v. Hobby,
349 U.S. 331 (1955).
8. When a badge of infamy — or other “grievous loss” is sought after, due process
comes into play. See Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971).
a. This right to due process was not afforded to James..
9. The Court ruled prior in a similar situation, noting “[a] dishonorable discharge has
certain statutory disabilities… such as the fact they will get looked at unfavorably
in all future hiring decisions…” In Re SteKing2008, RSC-AD-268.
10. As James has had his record — moderation and criminal — cleared, it has been in
his interest to get back into law enforcement. This blacklist/discharge, paired with
revocation has made that impossible.
11. These actions make a guarantee that any background investigator — public or
private sector, upon notice of these disciplinary actions, will possess an unfairly
prejudicial bias against James.
12. The County Sheriff’s Office did not cogently explain why they used their
discretion to issue dishonorable discharge for such a minor violation. The Court
has upheld for decades, “an agency must cogently explain why it used its
discretion in a given manner,” FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233,
249 (1972).
13. The County Sheriff’s Office did not provide to James any analysis or finding other
than what he had allegedly done to further justify termination. If we do not make
the requirements for administrative action “strict and demanding,” the modern
government can become a monster which rules with no practical limits on
discretion. See New York v. United States, 342 U.S. 882, 884 (1951) (dissenting
opinion).
14. §2.e(iii) of the Public Safety Act reads “No certification shall be revoked over any
instance of honest mistake or harmless error.”
a. James exited the Law Enforcement Training Center on good standing —
prior, he was a stellar law enforcement officer with numerous
commendations.
b. James did not make a mistake in his alleged “LTAA,” he rather waited for
law enforcement to be gone — then he peacefully left.
c. Moderation then banned him for LTAA under the false pretense that he had
left to avoid arrest — but there was no imminent apprehension that would
have resulted in arrest when he left, and it was over 5 minutes without the
police finding him before he left.
15. §2.e(i) of the Public Safety Act reads “No certification shall be revoked without
due process of law.”
a. James was denied his right to administrative review or due process when he
was abruptly stripped of his certification to work as a peace officer.
b. James’ certification was stripped not of his fault, but the fault of moderation
falsely banning him.
DEMAND FOR REMEDY
The Petitioner prays for the following relief:
1. Immediate reversal of the blacklist imposed by the County Sheriff’s Office.
2. Immediate reversal of the dishonorable discharge imposed by the County Sheriff’s
Office, to be changed to a general discharge — or hearing to determine whether or
not said discharge should remain in effect.
3. Immediate reversal of the certification revocation imposed by the Law
Enforcement Training Center — or hearing to determine whether or not said
discharge should remain in effect.
4. Declaratory relief affirming the decision of blacklist by the County Sheriff’s
Office was arbitrary.
Date: August 16, 2022
/s/ DAVIDLCLARKE
General Counsel
RIDGEWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
1200 Oakfield Road, Suite 452
Palmer, Ridgeway
xz#5562
Counsel of Record
