JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Supreme CourtCourts of AppealSuperior Courts Law Enforcement

SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY

COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY

Online Services

General Information

Home
Court Library

Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Supreme CourtCourts of AppealSuperior Courts Law Enforcement

SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY

COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY

Online Services

General Information

Home
Court Library
In_re._JamesVanchetti_-_Judgement_Ruling_(6).pdf

Back to Court Library

Research Document

In_re._JamesVanchetti_-_Judgement_Ruling_(6).pdf

Type: JudgmentCase: In re JamesVanchettiCase RSC-AD-631Division: ADMINISTRATIVE

Download original

Open case dashboardFull text indexed

Original document

Rendered from the court's authenticated repository

COURT SERVICES

E-Filing
Case Access
Court Library
Expungement Portal

ABOUT THE COURT

State of the Court
Judicial Roster

DIVISIONS

Civil
Criminal
Small Claims

CONNECT

Privacy Policy
Terms of Use

© 2026 Superior Court of Ridgeway, County of Ridgeway. All rights reserved.

Searchable full text

1,862 characters extracted

—

ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET NO. RSC-AD-631 In re. JAMES VANCHETTI Claimant BACKGROUND On the 16th of August, 2022, “In Re. JamesVanchetti” was filed under Administrative Court. Respondents were summoned on 16th of August, 2022, and appeared on the same day. The courts set a deadline of August 21st, 2022 at 04:15 PM EST for a response to the Claimant’s initial filing. On August 23rd, 2022 the Solicitor General notified the court that they would have the response by the same time the next day. The deadline was extended until the 24th of August, 2022 due to the change of attorneys. As of the 26th of August, 2022, no response has been received. Respondent, JamesVanchetti, was dishonorably discharged and blacklisted from the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter “RCSO”) without an administrative hearing for more than 4 months. Under previous statutes, an administrative hearing was not required to dishonorable discharge an employee. Current precedent set by “In Re. Steking” requires an employer who wishes to retain a dishonorable discharge must have it done upon the recommendation of a hearing. Incumbent Sheriff ISpilledMyTacos opted to voluntarily remove the Claimant’s dishonorable discharge. ORDER TO REMOVE EMPLOYMENT BLACKLIST WHEREAS, the Respondent, RCSO, has marked the Claimant as blacklisted for a period of over 4 months, and has not responded to claims presented by the Claimant. NOW THEREFORE, it is ORDERED that Claimant, JamesVanchetti, has their blacklist removed from the RCSO Department Roster. Due to the retroactivity of the claims presented, the court will not adjudicate whether the blacklist was arbitrary. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED. At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 6th day of September, 2022. /s/ Peacedownload ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDGE

Document record

File size: 75.3 KB
Uploaded: Aug 16, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed: Aug 16, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code: ADMINISTRATIVE_APPLICATION
Uploaded by: jamesvanchetti
Notes: In re. JamesVanchetti - Judgement_Ruling (6).pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/fwYkmrqw)