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
PAGE - 1 -
NOTICE OF CONTEST AGAINST IA RULING
TonyBlony492,RBN19309
Filing username: TonyBlony492
Counsel for: Petitioner
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
manman2380, Case No. To be assigned
Petitioner,
vs. NOTICE OF CONTEST
Internal Affairs Division, Palmer Police AGAINST IA RULING
Department,
Respondent.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, STATEMENT OF FACTS,
JURISDICTION & VENUE
• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is explicitly conferred upon this Court by 3 R.
Stat. § 141.006, which mandates original jurisdiction over all administrative
procedures and adverse administrative actions arising from primary civil
service agencies. The Palmer Police Department is a primary civil service
agency pursuant to 4 R. Stat. § 111.002(c).
• Pursuant to 3 R. Stat. § 141.101, this filing constitutes an “Administrative
Claim” brought on a strict matter of law asserting that the agency’s final
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
PAGE - 2 -
NOTICE OF CONTEST AGAINST IA RULING
action was arbitrary, capricious, and executed without due observance of
law.
• Pursuant to 3 R. Stat. § 141.101(a), this Administrative Claim must be
heard and decided exclusively by an administrative court judge. The
Petitioner explicitly objects to, and moves to bypass, any mixed tribunal,
multi-member panel, or police command panel configuration.
• Venue is proper before this centralized statewide court because the
underlying transaction, occurrence, and nonobservance of law accrued
entirely within the territorial boundaries of the State of Ridgeway.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On September 10, 2026, the Petitioner was operating a motor vehicle
within the City of Palmer when an incident occurred, resulting in a
high-speed vehicle pursuit initiated by Palmer Police Department
personnel.
2. The pursuit transitioned onto a structural bridge located entirely within the
territorial jurisdiction of the State of Ridgeway. At the exact temporal
moment of the encounter on the bridge, the roadway structure was
completely vacant, isolated, and cleared of all pedestrians, oncoming
traffic, and public bystanders.
3. While the Petitioner’s vehicle was traveling away from law enforcement
personnel on the said isolated bridge, thus presenting zero imminent threat
of death or serious physical harm to any person, Sergeant iCitruzx
unholstered his firearm and discharged multiple lethal rounds directly into
the Petitioner’s vehicle cabin.
4. The ammunition trajectory shows that the Sergeant has fired multiple shots
at the Petitioner’s vehicle, grouping them in a way in which the bullets
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
PAGE - 3 -
NOTICE OF CONTEST AGAINST IA RULING
directly and repeatedly struck the front windshield glass, both of the side
windows placed at the trunk and the back window. Since the front
windshield window is at an occupant’s and therefore at the Petitioner’s
head-level, this proves a reckless and unauthorized use of force.
5. On September 10, 2026, the Petitioner filed an official excessive force
misconduct complaint with the Palmer Police Department Internal Affairs
Division.
6. On September 10, 2026, Head Investigator Da_BeastlyMan issued a final
agency disposition summarily rejecting the Petitioner’s complaint and
entering a finding of “No Policy Violation,” thereby shielding Sergeant
iCitruzx from administrative discipline.
7. In executing the final rejection, the Respondent completely failed to
analyze the split-second environmental conditions of the scene. Under 4
R. Stat. § 123.401(e), an administrative action that takes no account of
mitigating factors, liabilities, or environmental circumstances is legally
defined as arbitrary.
8. Because the Respondent sustained a force deployment that was legally
unjustified on an isolated structure, the agency’s final disposition is facially
invalid, arbitrary, and strictly prohibited under the mandatory compliance
terms of 4 R. Stat. § 123.402.
9. Furthermore, the Head Investigator has used the following argumentation
as his reasoning for the complaint to be rejected and no policy violation to
be found: ‘‘...Complainant collides with an executor at dangerously high
speeds and flees while disregarding the road laws. Officers on scene
deemed it necessary to authorize lethal force because the suspect was
showing signs of erratic driving and potentially being a danger to those
around. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)471.1 US states that “Under the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use
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
PAGE - 4 -
NOTICE OF CONTEST AGAINST IA RULING
deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer
has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death
or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” The Suspect was indeed
driving at high speeds and violating other traffic laws simultaneously. In my
opinion, I believe the use of force was appropriate in this situation’’.
10. Under multiple legal precedents, which will be used in the argumentation
part, this whole reasoning and logical thinking is legally deemed invalid.
ARGUMENTATION
• The Head Investigator has failed to use the legal standard, which is used
in order to review the justifiability in use of force cases/complaints, which is
set by Waterman v. Batton, 2005. Under this precedent, Use of Force shall
be evaluated in the exact moment of and in which the trigger is pulled.
• Given the fact that no one else was present at the scene where the
Sergeant has opened fire, the use of force was EXCESSIVE,
UNJUSTIFIED and UNLAWFUL.
• The similiar is said by the Supreme Court of United States under the cases
of Ornelas v. Erie County, Adams v. Speers and the foundational
standard established under Graham v. Connor.
III. REMEDIES REQUESTED
The Petitioner hereby respectfully requests that this Honorable Court exercises
its statutory authority under 3 R. Stat. § 141.010 and § 141.102(b) to grant the following
equitable and declaratory relief:
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
PAGE - 5 -
NOTICE OF CONTEST AGAINST IA RULING
• A binding judicial determination and Declaratory Judgment pursuant to 3
R. Stat. § 141.011 declaring that the final disposition of the Palmer Police
Department Internal Affairs Division was arbitrary, capricious, and
executed in flagrant nonobservance of state use-of-force laws.
• A formal Order pursuant to 3 R. Stat. § 141.102(b) forcefully reversing the
Internal Affairs Division’s final entry from “Rejected” to SUSTAINED on the
Petitioner’s excessive force complaint.
• An evidentiary production order pursuant to 2 R. Stat. § 511.101(b) and
Rid. R. Civ. P. Rule 32(d), compelling the Respondent to grant the
Petitioner immediate, unredacted access to all internal communications,
statements, and raw video materials cataloged under Exhibits A.
• A temporary and permanent administrative stay on any vehicle license
suspensions or automated penalties stemming from the underlying
incident, pending a full corrective record adjustment by the Department of
Transportation pursuant to 8 R. Stat. § 232.007.
