ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Citation:
In re CardinalMonterruh, RSC-AH2524
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
April Fourth, Two Thousand
And Twenty Four
Ridgeway National Guard
Applicant
and
CardinalMonterruh
Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 1.3 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
I. Introduction
[1] Lieutenant ConstantlyVerbal applied for an administrative hearing under s. 1.3 of
the Administrative Procedure Act on the date of March 17th, 2024, with him naming
himself as the department representative and Corporals solitarysins and
MaxdudeHowdens as the impanelled officers.
[2] The application named CardinalMonterruh, an employee of the Ridgeway
National Guard, as the respondent.
[3] The application has established the department’s desire to dishonourably discharge
CardinalMonterruh, due to the fact that they violated a large number of the
department’s policies relating to the commissioning of crime.
[4] Due to the failure of CardinalMonterruh to appear, the applicant has filed a brief
requesting for an expedited ruling in accordance with Section 3.1 of the Employee
Desertion Act.
[5] I am satisfied that the respondent has failed to appear before the Administrative
Court. As a result of this, the hearing shall be bypassed.
[6] All factual allegations are assumed as true, having gone uncontested by the
respondent, and are reproduced in Part II.
II. Findings of Fact
[7] On or about September 18th, 2023, CardinalMonterruh (“accused”) was outside of
the government annex building in Ridgeway County, State of Ridgeway, acting on
behalf of the State of Ridgeway as a Private in the Ridgeway National Guard.
[8] Standing on the sidewalk was mandatorymorale (“victim”). Shortly after the
accused arrived at the annex, they walked towards the victim, drew a B1014 shotgun,
and discharged it once into the victim, causing them to immediately die.
[9]The victim was not posing an active threat to life at the time they were killed by the
accused.
[10] There was no external active threat to life at the time the victim was killed by the
accused.
[11] Under the National Guard’s use of force policy, there was no apparent justification
for the accused to draw and discharge their firearm at the time they caused the death of
the victim.
[12] The National Guard’s use of force policy is taught as a part of the National Guard
Basic Military Training program and is publicly available for all guardsmen to consult
at any time.
[13] It can be reasonably inferred based on the accused’s behavior and for the reasons
described in paragraphs 3-6 that they intended to cause the death of the victim and that
they knew, or should have known, that this act would be in violation of department
policy.
[14] On or about March 9th, 2024, the accused was adjudicated guilty of R.C.C. §
3.10, 3.05c, 5.03, and 6.05, based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal
court of law, in the matter of the State of Ridgeway v. CardinalMonterruh.
III. Findings of Law and Policy
[15] The Ridgeway National Guard Operation Regulations establish a large number of
the crimes which were committed by the respondent as Type I violations. Ridgeway
National Guard establishes that Type I violations warrant dishonourable discharge
when they are committed.
[16] In Exhibit E, it is seen that the respondent was adjudicated guilty of the alleged
criminal offences which are depicted in Exhibit A. These offences violate the policies
of the National Guard.
[17] The nature of these violations being Type I warrant the dishonourable discharge
of the respondent.
IV. Recommendations
[19] The applicant recommends termination of the respondent’s employment from the
Ridgeway National Guard in the nature of a dishonourable discharge.
[20] The applicant is entitled to take any action up to and including an dishonourable
discharge.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway this 4th day of April, 2024.
Administrative Court Judge Jyoungbird
