VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF W A Y N E S B O R O

MICHAEL W. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No.: CL22-000216

FILED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
WAYNESBORO CIRCUIT COURT

CITY OF WAYNESBORO, VIRGINIA, ET AL DATE: 03/51/2023 @16:04:42

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED C O M P L A I N T

C O M E S N O W plaintiff M i c h a e l W . Martin (?Martin?), p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 1:8 a n d

1:9 of the R u l e s o f the S u p r e m e C o u r t of Virginia, a n d m o v e s this H o n o r a b l e C o u r t f o r

leave to file a n A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t in this action, a n d in s u p p o r t t h e r e o f , s t a t e s as

follows:

1. T h e C o m p l a i n t in t h i s action w a s filed o n D e c e m b e r 27, 2022.

2. A s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s filing, n o n e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e b e e n s e r v e d and n o n e

o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e filed r e s p o n s i v e pleadings.

3. No trial d a t e h a s b e e n s e t a n d t h e p r o p o s e d a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t would not

p r e j u d i c e the d e f e n d a n t s . |

4. A c o p y o f t h e p r o p o s e d First A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t is a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as Exhibit A Y

5. Rule 1:8 o f the R u l e s of the S u p r e m e C o u r t o f Virginia s t a t e s " { l l e a v e to a m e n d

shall b e l i b e r a l l y g r a n t e d . " M o r e o v e r , the Virginia S u p r e m e C o u r t has held that

1
 "Leave to amend shall be liberally granted in furtherance of the ends of justice.?

Jacobson v. Southern Biscuit Co., 198 Va. 813 (1957). See also Peterson v.

Castano, 260 Va. 299, 302 (2000).

WHEREFORE, Martin moves the Court to enter an Order allowing him to amend his

C o m p l a i n t a n d l e a v e t o file the a t t a c h e d First A m e n d e d Complaint.

MICHAEL W. MARTIN

W. b ios
Of Counsel

W . Barry M o n t g o m e r y , Esq. (VSB# 43042)

KPM Law
901 M o o r e f i e l d Park Dr., S u i t e 2 0 0
Richmond, V A 23236
Tel: (804) 3 2 0 - 6 3 0 0
Fax: (804) 320-6312
Barry.montgome kpmlaw.com

Certificate o f Service

| h e r e b y certify t h a t o n M a r c h 29, 2023, | d i d mail a true a n d e x a c t c o p y of the

f o r e g o i n g to M e l i s a M i c h e l s e n , Esq., Litten & Sipe, LLP, 4 1 0 Neff Ave., H a r r i s o n b u r g ,
V A 22801.

W . Barry M o n t g o m e r y , Esq.
V I R G I N I A :

IN T H E C I R C U I T C O U R T FOR T H E C I T Y OF W A Y N E S B O R O

MICHAEL W. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No.: CL22-000216

C I T Y O F W A Y N E S B O R O ,V I R G I N I A ,

And

M I C H A E L D. W I L H E L M

And

T I M O T H Y A. M A R T I N

And

D O N A L D L. S M I T H

And

D A V I D L. L E D B E T T E R

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C O M E S N O W p l a i n t i f f Michael W. M a r t i n (?Martin?), and for his First Amended

Complaint i n this action, states as follows:

1.
M a r t i n is a career law enforcement officer w i t h over 28 years o f experience. Martin

is a former Captain w i t h the C i t y o f Waynesboro, Virginia Police Department (hereinafter

EXHIBIT
?WPD?). Martin reported corruption w i t h i n the Augusta County Sheriff's Office to the V i r g i n i a

State Police and he was immediately removed from the Skyline Joint Drug Task Force (hereinafter

?Skyline Drug Task Force?) as well as dereliction o f duty by Commonwealth?s Attorney David

Ledbetter. The City o f Waynesboro Police Department and defendant Michael D. W i l h e l m then

fired Martin in retaliation for his reporting o f fraud and corruption w i t h i n August County. Rather

than investigate his allegations, the defendants instead investigated M a r t i n , fired him and then

defamed in the press and in the local law enforcement community.

PARTIES

2. M a r t i n is a resident o f Virginia and a former employee o f the C i t y o f Waynesboro as a

Captain i n the city?s p o l i c e department.

3. The C i t y o f Waynesboro (hereinafter the ?City?) is an independent city w i t h i n the

Commonwealth o f V i r g i n i a as previously established by charter and various revised charters,

including the most recent i n 2005 (subsequently amended in 2019) and is an ?employer? under

Va. Code § 2.2-310 o f the V i r g i n i a Fraud Abuse Whistle B l o w e r Protection A c t (the ?Act?).

4. A t a l l times relevant to this action, Michael D. W i l h e l m (hereinafter ?Wilhelm? or ?Chief

Wilhelm?) is an individual and the former Chief o f Police for the City o f Waynesboro. A t

all times relevant to this action, W i l h e l m was Martin?s direct supervisor.

5. A t a l l times relevant to this action, T i m o t h y A . M a r t i n (?Martin? or ? C A Martin?) was an

individual and the Commonwealth?s Attorney for Augusta County.

6. A t all times relevant to this action, D o n a l d L. Smith (?Smith?), was an individual and the

Sheriff o f August County.

 . A t all times relevant to this action, defendant David L. Ledbetter (??Ledbetter? or ?CA

Ledbetter?), was an individual and the C o m m o n w e a l t h Attorney for the C i t y of

Waynesboro.

FACTS

In or around early 2016, M a r t i n was asked by Wilhelm o f the Waynesboro Police

Department to rebuild a local drug task force, called the Skyline Drug Task Force, for the

purpose o f interdicting high volumes o f illegal drugs and narcotics that were f l o w i n g

throughout the region.

Waynesboro Police Department subsequently served as the sponsor for the local task force

p r i m a r i l y owing to Waynesboro?s central location to all four member jurisdictions and

because Waynesboro Police Department was by far the largest contributing agency in terms

o f manpower and devoted assets.

10. The Skyline D r u g Task Force was based and housed i n Waynesboro and not Augusta

County, as previous regional drug task forces had been. Waynesboro Police Department

ultimately assigned a Captain, a Sergeant, a Detective, and t w o canine handlers to the

regional effort w h i l e Augusta County?s contribution was much lower.

I t . Later, i n 2016, M a r t i n , commanding the Waynesboro Police Special Operations D i v i s i o n

and w i t h assets o f the Skyline Drug Task Force, opened a case called ?Operation Vaquero?

w h i c h led to the use o f an informant who provided valuable information on a meth

t r a f f i c k i n g r i n g based out o f Ivy, Virginia.

12. The Skyline D r u g Task Force began to make serious progress with regional drug

interdictions i n 2016 but began to encounter numerous hardships and ?friction? from Smith

and C A M a r t i n o f Augusta County. This interference came about despite the fact that
 Augusta County was only providing three law enforcement personnel to the task for ce

efforts.

.
In or around late 2016, C A Martin approached Martin and requested that he provide C A

Martin with the list o f all confidential informants for ?vetting? purposes. M a r t i n responded

that he would provide those names in Augusta County cases and i n those circumstances

that the disclosure was relevant to Augusta County cases. C A M a r t i n was v i s i b l y angry at

t h i s response.

.
During the ensuing months, Sheriff Smith and M a r t i n began to have considerable

professional differences o f opinion on drug interdiction tactics and other police tactics

utilized by Augusta County when serving drug warrants. D u r i n g S h e r i f f Smith?s early

tenure, many attempts b y his own tactical team to serve drug search warrants w i t h i n

Augusta County failed due to improper tactics. This led to a decline i n the amount o fd r u g s

seized in prior years and was especially concerning to M a r t i n due to the countless hours o f

overtime and investigative hours that his own Waynesboro drug investigators were

investing i n Augusta County.

15.
In or around M a r c h 15, 2017, M a r t i n planned and led a m u l t i - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l effort to

execute several search warrants across the region to dismantle elements o f a M e x i c a n D r u g

Cartel trafficking methamphetamine. This operation was called ?OperationA p o c a l y p t o . ?

Warrants were successfully executed i n Harrisonburg, Waynesboro, and the Counties o f

Augusta and Nelson and dealt a tremendous b l o w to the cartel operatives in the region.

Because o f the Previous failures b y S h e r i f f Smith to adequately execute drug search

warrants, and because this high profile case had taken thousands o f man hours and been
 years in the making, M a r t i n requested the use o f the V i r g i n i a State Police tactical teamt o

execute these warrants instead o f Augusta County Sheriff?s Office personnel.

16. Operation Apocalypto ted to the seizure o f 14.5 pounds o f methamphetamine and 2.5

pounds o f cocaine and was widely viewed by area law enforcement to be a h i g h l y

successful interdiction effort.

17. In the days f o l l o w i n g Operation Apocalypto, it became very clear that Sheriff Smith was

furious that the Augusta County Sheriff's O f f i c e was not utilized and raked numerous

regional and state l a w enforcement officials ?over the coals.? The r i f t between S h e r i f f

Smith, M a r t i n and the Waynesboro Police Department grew even greater f r o m that point

forward.

18. S h e r i f f Smith thereafter demanded that any and all drug warrants i n Augusta County be

solely served through the Augusta County Sheriff's Department. The net result was the

further c r i p p l i n g o f drug interdiction efforts i n the region.

19. O n or about December 5, 2017, Martin and other elements o f the Skyline D r u g Task Force

were i n v o l v e d in a vehicle stop along Interstate 81 near M i n t Spring, V A (situated in

Augusta County). Augusta County S h e r i f f s Department Sgt. M i k e Roane (hereafter

?Roane?) had been tracking three A f r i c a n American male suspects b y cellular ping

(potentially w i t h o u t a warrant). Instead o f conducting a routine traffic interdiction stop,

Roane took it upon h i m s e l f to ram the suspect vehicle f r o m behind, even though the

suspects had complied and pulled to the side o f the road. Roane and other members o f the

task force then broke out all the w i n d o w s o f the suspect vehicle. The suspects were then

forcibly detained and placed in handcuffs. The subsequent search o f their vehicle only

revealed a trace amount o f suspected drugs i n the c o m m o n area in the back o f the vehicle.
20. At this point, M a r t i n became highly concerned about Roane?s roguish behavior and his use

o f excessive force against three African American suspects who were f u l l y compliant.

First, he began to suspect that Roane got the cell pings illegally. Second, he suspected that

Roane?s use o f excessive force was potentially a civil rights violation under 42 U S C §

1983. And, he made these concerns known to others ? especially C h i e f W i l h e l m .

21. By this time during the winter o f 2017, Sheriff Smith was angry w i t h M a r t i n due to

Martin?s complaints o f misconduct by the Augusta Sheriff's O f f i c e and began to take

retaliatory action against Martin.

22. D u r i n g the winter o f 2017, Petitioner assembled the elements o f the task force to discuss

methods to better utilize the canine units to conduct package interdictions at the various

FedEx and UPS warehouses throughout the region. W i t h i n an hour after that meeting, Sgt.

Roane called M a r t i n and stated, ?look the Sheriff [Smith] wants me to make it clear to you

that he doesn?t w a n t your drug dogs working in the county. He has his o w n plans f o r a

canine team and he doesn?t want your dogs w o r k i n g those targets.? This further

undermined w h a t was supposed to be a multi-jurisdiction approach to combatting the drug

trade and further minimized the task force?s ability to interdict the drug trade in Augusta

County.

23. On o r about December 7, 2017, Martin and other task force members assisted Roane in

conducting a consensual search at the home o f a suspect in Stuarts Draft (situated in

Augusta County). Certain amounts o f marijuana along w i t h drug paraphernalia, including

a large number o f marijuana pipes and other smoking devices, were confiscated. Roane

instructed the suspect to destroy a number o f valuable glass pipes that the suspect had in

his personal collection, and he did so, destroying several hundred dollars i n personal
 property without due process. D u r i n g the course o f that interdiction, Roane also made the

comment that he wanted to add one particular pipe i n the f o r m o f an unclothed woman to

his personal trophy collection. That pipe sat on Roane?s desk for over a week in clear

violation o f established evidence handling policies o f the Augusta S h e r i f f s Office, the

Waynesboro Police Department General Orders and policies and chain o f custody rules

commonly f o l l o w i n g by law enforcement.

24. M a r t i n brought Roane?s mishandling o f evidence and violation o f evidence handling

policies and procedures to the attention o f the V i r g i n i a State Police Coordinator, Special

Agent Glenn Phillips, to C h i e f W i l h e l m , and to the attention o f Waynesboro C A Ledbetter.

. Sheriff Smith became aware o f Martin?s above-referenced report and became angry w i t h

Martin. S h e r i f f Smith immediately drove to meet w i t h C A Ledbetter asking that Roane

not be placed on the ?Brady list? ? meaning that he could no longer testify in Waynesboro

Courts. Augusta County C A Martin also tried to run interference for Roane but C A

Ledbetter held his ground u n o f f i c i a l l y placing Roane on the ?Brady list.?

26. C A M a r t i n would later comment to Waynesboro Assistant Commonwealth Attorney W i l l

Flory (hereafter ?Flory?) that he ??couldn?t believe that this guy (Martin) wanted to ruin a

cop?s career overa pipe.?

27. Later in 2018, M a r t i n decided that enough was enough. A f t e r explaining to W i l h e l m about

his newest concerns, M a r t i n was told by W i l h e l m that he just needed to ?quit pissing people

off?. M a r t i n felt he had a clear command responsibility to report these violations and went

directly to V i r g i n i a State Police Headquarters i n Appomattox, V i r g i n i a to report this

misconduct o f Sgt. Roane and Sheriff Smith there. During that meeting conducted with

L t . Ira Matney and First Sergeant Bob Shupe, Martin walked them througha l i t a n y o f
 serious issues, including Roane?s deviation from professional standards and thep o t e n t i a l

civil rights violation referenced above. Additionally, Martin reported S h e r i f f Smith?s

constant interference w i t h the Skyline Drug Task Force despite the fact that Augusta

County Sheriff's O f f i c e was a minimal player in terms o f manpower and resources to the

task force ? despite the fact that Augusta County is the largest jurisdiction in the region

with the largest tax base.

28.
A f e w weeks later, S h e r i f f Smith retaliated against Martin. S h e r i f f Smith subsequently

called a special meeting o f the Skyline Drug Task Force and had M a r t i n voted o f f o f the

task force. Furthermore, Smith garnered the votes to have the task force moved from

Waynesboro to Augusta County. A t the same time, the Waynesboro Police D e p a r t m e n t

never investigated Martin?s reports o f misconduct by Roane and Sheriff Smith.

29. Roane, S h e r i f f Smith, and C A M a r t i n continued in the efforts to thwart Martin?s

investigations i n various drug interdictions and directly interfered w i t h many o f Martin?s

confidential informants. In at least two incidents, Roane directly contacted M a r t i n ' s

confidential informants in an effort to dissuade them from w o r k i n g for Martin. This had a

particularly adverse effect on a large drug casc that M a r t i n was w o r k i n g on.

30. In N o v e m b e r o f 2018, while acting as a D E A Task Force O f f i c e r w i t h full federal

authority, M a r t i n seized approximately a kilogram o f methamphetamine i n A u g u s t a

County f r o m a suspect. S h e r i f f Smith, upon learning that Martin had made this large seizure

inhis jurisdiction, directly contacted the Washington Field O f f i c e o f the Drug Enforcement

Agency and successfully had M a r t i n ' s federal credentials pulled as a result o f his complaint

about Martin. B u t the D E A also pulled the credentials for the other three officers still on

the task force, one Augusta County Deputy and two Virginia State Police investigators.
 This absolutely crippled several ongoing investigations and also stripped all the

jurisdictions o f very valuable resources and jurisdictional authority provided by the D E A ,

all due to Smith?s vendetta against Martin.

3 .
In or around February, 2019 while working a Waynesboro law enforcement case, M a r t i n

requested that C A Ledbetter have a certain confidential informant released o n bond i n order

to further cultivate cooperation (the same subject referenced above). Ledbetter complied

with that request and also asked C A M a r t i n to do the same. A t that meeting, C A M a r t i n

stated that he w o u l d agree only as long as M a r t i n turned drugs seized f r o m the confidential

informant over to the lab for testing. Martin had in fact already sent the suspected drugs to

the V i r g i n i a state lab f o r testing to be used i n a companion case against the couriers who

brought the drugs to V i r g i n i a f r o m Colorado. M a r t i n made it very clear to C A M a r t i n that

he had promised the informant in this case that he would not be prosecuted i f he continued

to cooperate. C A M a r t i n asked M a r t i n i f he intended to take the case federal and M a r t i n

stated that he was not, reiterating that he had made a promise not to charge the informant

and that he had n o intention o f sending the drugs to the federal lab to substantiate a federal

charge. It was this promise, used only as l a s t resort b y Martin to get the kilogram o f drugs
a

o f f the street and ensure cooperation, that w o u l d prove to be the impetus f o r C A Martin?s

ensuing wrath i n t r y i n g to perjure M a r t i n and ruin his career.

32. Upon his release, the confidential informant cooperated with M a r t i n as promised and on

A p r i l 4, 2019, M a r t i n was able to use the information he provided to conduct an operation

in N e w Market, V A . Asad i r e c t result o f the information provided by the informant, M a r t i n

was able to plan and conduct a multi-jurisdictional operation that yielded the arrest o f t w o
 drug cartel members f r o m M e x i c o and the seizure o f over 6 pounds o f meth, an ounce o f

heroin and over $100,000 in U.S. currency.

33. D u r i n g the debriefing o f the t w o arrestees that evening, Martin learned that they had been

trafficking multiple pounds o f methamphetamine into the western area o f Augusta County

for several months. This was a huge counter-drug victory for Augusta C o u n t y because o f

the significant source o f supply that it disrupted.

34. D e s p i t e t h i s h u g e v i c t o r y , M a r t i n r e c e i v e d a s u m m o n s to t h e A u g u s t a C o u n t y G r a n d J u r y

in July o f 2019 to appear and provide probable cause testimony against the informant for a

violation o f 18.2-248 (H), Code o f Virginia. Martin was taken aback by this sudden charge

because it was his understanding that the informant was not going to be charged as

promised. M a r t i n d u t i f u l l y appeared as required and reluctantly provided probable cause

to the grand j u r y . A true b i l l o f indictment was returned on the informant.

35. A short time after the grand j u r y case was heard, Martin encountered A t t o m e y Dana

C o r m i e r (hereafter ?Cormier?) outside o f the Waynesboro C i r c u i t Court. Cormier asked

M a r t i n about the pending case and advised that he was representing the informant. Martin

asked Cormier i f C A M a r t i n had divulged the fact that a promise was made to the informant

in his discovery. C o r m i e r responded that he had not. M a r t i n felt that it would truly be a

miscarriage o f justice i f the promise made to the informant, and his subsequent cooperation,

were not provided to his defense so he told the entire story to Cormier. W i t h this

information, Cormier filed for a suppression hearing i n the case.

36. N o t only did C A M a r t i n fail to divulge the exculpatory evidence to Cormier, prior to the

suppression hearing he made a concerted effort to ?shape? Martin?s testimony to f i t his

agenda in prosecuting the informant. Just p r i o r to the hearing, C A Martin sent t w o o f his

10
 deputy CA?s, Lorna Port (hereafter ?Port?) and Charles Baldis (hereafter ?Baldis?), to meet

with Martin about the case. D u r i n g this meeting, Martin repeatedly tried to reiterate that he

had madea clear, concise, and unequivocal promise to the informant that he would not be

charged i f he cooperated. Baldis attempted to quibble and twist Martin?s words to insinuate

that M a r t i n had not been clear i n his promise, but Martin remained firm. Baldis would later

completely misrepresent that conversation in a certified memo to the court.

37. The suppression hearing was held on August 17" i n Augusta County Court. C A Martin

made a clear attempt to carefully craft an argument that would seemingly discredit Martin

during this hearing. M a r t i n remained f i r m in his testimony that he had clearly made a

promise to the i n f o r m a n t that he would not be charged i f he handed over the drugs and

cooperated. Following the hearing, CA Martin initiated a V i r g i n i a State Police

investigation into Martin?s testimony, insinuating that Martin had committed perjury i n the

case.

38. O n September 1 7 " o f 2020, W i l h e l m placed Martin on administrative leave w i t h pay while

the investigation was underway. The only constraint that W i l h e l m documented in the

department m e m o provided to M a r t i n was that he was ?not to discuss this case w i t h anyone

other than the Investigator assigned to conduct this investigation and your attorney?.

39. Jeffrey Einhouse (hereafter ?Einhaus?) o f the Chesterfield County Commonwealth

Attomey?s O f f i c e was designated as the special prosecutor in this case against Martin.

40. D u r i n g the investigation the V i r g i n i a State Police did not interview the informant in

question regarding Martin?s side o f the story. Despite this fact, Einhaus returned his

findings i n a memo dated A p r i l 5, 2021 w h i c h declined any prosecution o f Martin. The

11
 memo stated that ?the investigation did not reveal any criminal offense(s) committed by

Captain Martin arising from his sworn testimony given on August 1 7 " o f 2020?.

4 -
On A p r i l 19, 2021, W i l h e l m and Martin discussed the ongoing case in a 45 minute phone

conversation w h i c h was recorded by Martin. When Martin inquired about his status and

his potential return to work, W i l h e l m stated ? i f you get cleared up with Ledbetter then we

are good?, indicating that he had no further issues w i t h M a r t i n at the time. As he had done

many times before this conversation, M a r t i n related his ongoing concerns about C A

Ledbetter?s apparent drinking problems and his overwhelming reluctance to adequately

prosecute drug cases. Furthermore, Martin told W i l h e l m that he was deeply concemed

about Ledbetter?s fraternization w i t h a specific defense attorney and the fact that he had

taken a recent trip to the beach w i t h this particular defense attorney while they had felony

drug cases pending i n court. W i l h e l m acknowledged and even appeared to agree w i t h

Martin?s concerns but took no action.

42. On June 30, 2021, M a r t i n and his attorney met w i t h W i l h e l m and C A Ledbetter about the

results o f the criminal investigation. Martin expected that he could return to w o r k due to

him being cleared o f any crime. Instead, C A Ledbetter told M a r t i n that he would no longer

hear Martin?s cases in court. M a r t i n was not placed on the Brady list by Ledbetter, which

would have provided him due process in a Brady hearing. Instead, Ledbetter simply

rendered Martin?s police powers almost useless by refusing to hear his cases in the future,

an action to w h i c h M a r t i n had zero options to defend against. This action was clearly

retaliatory and motivated by Martin?s open accusations o f Ledbetter?s drinking problem,

his improper fraternization w i t h a local defense attorney and his failure to effectively

prosecute drug cases.

12
43. Also during the meeting held on June 30, 2021, W i l h e l m advised Martin that despite the

fact that he had been cleared by the year and a half long V i r g i n i a State Police investigation,

he was opening a separate internal affairs investigation into the matter. W i l h e l m provided

Martin w i t h a memo on July 12, 2021 stating that he had assigned Maj or Sean Reeves

(hereafter ?Reeves?) w i t h the Albemarle County Police Department to conduct a separate

Administrative Investigation to determine whether or not he had violated Waynesboro

Police Department policy. M a r t i n complied fully in the internal affairs investigation.

44. The key allegation was made by W i l h e l m that M a r t i n had continued to perform police w o r k

outside o f the parameters o f what was allowed during his administrative suspension period.

Ledbetter claimed that M a r t i n told h i m he had played a large role in the seizure o f 41

pounds o f methamphetamine on December 2, 2020. M a r t i n strongly refuted Wilhelm?s

claim via the testimony o f Martin?s subordinate investigators during the administrative

grievance process. The allegations made against M a r t i n in the internal affairs investigation

were unfounded. Reeves appeared to completely ignore Martin?s request to have key

witnesses interviewed that could easily refute some o f the allegations against him. Reeves

also completely ignored the existence o f exculpatory evidence that existed on a DEA

cellular monitoring website w h i c h would clearly show that M a r t i n played no significant

role i n the December 2, 2020 drug seizure.

45. W i l h e l m and the City o f Waynesboro terminated Martin?s employment w i t h the

Waynesboro Police Department on January 3, 2022.

46. A t all times relevant to this action, W i l h e l m was acting as an employee and agent o f the

City o f Waynesboro.

COUNT |

13
 W R O N G F U L T E R M A T I O N UNDER V I R G I N I A CODE § 2.2-3011

47. The allegations o f paragraphs 1-46 are re-alleged as i f fully set forth herein.

48. The City, C h i e f W i l h e l m , C A Ledbetter, S h e r i f f Smith C A M a r t i n retaliated against

Martin has been subjected to retaliatory actions for conduct as a whistle b l o w e r which is protected

under V i r g i n i a Code § 2.2-3011.

49. P l a i n t i f f M a r t i n reported ?Abuse? in the form o f conduct or behavior by Sgt. Roane,

Sheriff Smith and C A M a r t i n , all employees o f state and local government, that was

inconsistent w i t h state, local, or agency standards for w h i c h specific corrective or

disciplinary action was warranted. (See §2.2-3010, Code o f V i r g i n i a ) . P l a i n t i f f M a r t i n

reported such abuse and misconduct to the Virginia State Police.

50.
P l a i n t i f f M a r t i n witnessed and had evidence o f " W r o n g d o i n g " by C A M a r t i n , Sgt. Roane

and S h e r i f f Smith c o m m i t t i n g violations o f federal and state laws and/or regulations, local

ordinances, and f o r m a l l y adopted codes o f conduct o r ethics o f a professional organization

designed to protect the interests o f the public. (See §2.2-3010, Code o f V i r g i n i a ) . P l a i n t i f f

M a r t i n reported such Wrongdoing and misconduct to the V i r g i n i a State Police and to

W i l h e l m and others.

5].
P l a i n t i f f was a ?Whistleblower? pursuant to the Fraud and Abuse W h i s t l e b l o w e r

Protection A c t M a r t i n witnessed and had evidence o f ?wrongdoing? and ?abuse? made a

good faith report o f the wrongdoing or abuse to his superior and to an appropriate

a u t h o r i t y ? t h e V i r g i n i a State Police. W i t h respect to C A Martin, C A Ledbetter and Sheriff

Smith, p l a i n t i f f M a r t i n was citizen o f the Commonwealth who witnessed and had evidence

o f ?Wrongdoing? and ?Abuse? and made good faith reports o f to his superiors and to an

appropriate a u t h o r i t y ? t h e V i r g i n i a State Police.

14
 52. In violation o f §2.2-3011, C oo f Vdi r g i e
n i a , The City, C h i e f W i l h e l m and C A Ledbetter

retaliated against p l a i n t i f f Martin by terminating his employment w i t h the City and by

requesting another investigation o f P l a i n t i f f Martin by M a j o r Sean Reeves with the

Albemarle County Police Department.

53. In violation o f §2.2-3010.1, Code o f V i r g i n i a C A Martin and S h e r i f f Smith retaliated

against p l a i n t i f f Martin

54. Virginia Code s 2.2.-3011(A) states: ?No employer may discharge, threaten, or

otherwise discriminate or retaliate against a whistle blower whether acting on his o w n ort h r o u g h

a person acting on his behalf o r under his direction.? (emphasis added).

55. Martin has, i n good faith, cooperated w i t h V i r g i n i a State Police and Federal L a w

Enforcement to provide protected disclosures about the corruption within the task force and the

Augusta County Sheriff's office.

56. As a direct and proximate result o f the retaliation and discrimination by the

defendants and the violation o f §2.2-3011 and §2.2-3010.1, Code o f Virginia, p l a i n t i f f M a r t i n has

suffered damages including last wages and benefits, loss o f his career, pain and suffering and other

damages.

C O U N T II:

W R O N G F U L T E R M A T I O N U N D E R V I R G I N I A C O D E § 40.1-27.3

57. The allegations o f paragraphs 1-46 are re-alleged as i f fully set forth herein.

58. The C i t y and C h i e f W i l h e l m discriminated against Martin, disciplined Martin and

terminated Martin?s employment because Martin:

a. Reported violations o f federal and state laws and regulations to the Virginia State

Police and his supervisor;

15
 b. Refused his employers orders to perform actions that violated state and federal laws

after M a r t i n advise his employer that he believed the requested actions would

violated state and federal law;

Refused to engage in criminal acts including perjury and violations o f suspects?

civil rights as protected by the United States Constitution and the Constitution o f

Virginia;

59. The City and C h i e f Wilhelm disciplined Martin and terminated Martin?s employment i n

direct violation o f V i r g i n i a Code §40.1-27.3.

60. Asa direct and proximate result o f the violations o f V i r g i n i a Code §40.1-27.3 by the C i t y

and Wilhelm, p l a i n t i f f M a r t i n has suffered damages including losy wages and benefits as

well as loss o f his employment position.

COUNT I l l :

C O M M O N L A W WRONGFUL TERMATION (BOWMAN CLAIM)

61. The allegations o f paragraphs 1-60 are re-alleged as i f f u l l y set forth herein.

62. The City and C h i e f W i l h e l m have intentionally and wrongly terminated Martin in

violation o f the policies o f V i r g i n i a including the laws requiring law enforcement officials to

document and safe keep property seized during the execution o f a search warrant and during

criminal investigations as expressed in §19.2-57, §19.2-58, §19.2-386.4 and Article I, Section 11

o f the Constitution o f V i r g i n i a prohibiting the govemment from depriving persons o f lifer, liberty

or property w i t h o u t due process o f law. Such termination o f employment was wrongful pursuant

to the common law o f V i r g i n i a pursuant to Bowman v. State Bank o f Keysville, 229 Va. 534

(1985).

16
 63. The City and C h i e f W i l h e l m terminated p l a i n t i f f Martin?s employment due to

Martin refusing to engage in conduct that w o u l d violate Virginia?s policy o f p r o v i d i n g exculpatory

i n f o r m a t i o n to c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s as expressed i n S t o v e r v . C o m m o n w e a l t h , 211 V a . 7 8 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,

Dozier v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1113 (1979) and G i v .gUnitedStates,

l i o 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

64. As a proximate cause o f the conduct o f the w i l l f u l and intentional conduct o f the

defendants, taken w i t h the specific intent to harm the plaintiff, M a r t i n has suffered damages

including lost wages and benefits, substantially compensatory damages, including mental and

emotional distress, reputational harm, loss o f sleep, suffered health issues, loss o f income,

humiliation, embarrassment, loss o f time, and other damages.

65. ?Inaddition, the defendant acted intentionally, w i l l f u l l y , maliciously, out o fpersonal

Spite and i l l w i l l against Martin, and with utter and conscious disregard to his rights. M a r t i n is

thus entitled to punitive damages on this count.

COUNT IV:

C I V I L CONSIPRACY TO INJURY (§18.2-500)

66. The allegations o f paragraphs 1-65 are re-alleged as i f fully set forth herein.

67. The C i t y , C h i e f W i l h e l m , C A Ledbetter, Sheriff Smith and C A M a r t i n w i l l f u l l y

combined and conspired w i t h malice to injure p l a i n t i f f M a r t i n i n his reputation and

profession as a l a w enforcement officer, i n violation o f §18.2-499, Code o f V i r g i n i a and

to procure his termination f r o m the City o f Waynesboro Police Department.

68. A s a direct and proximate result o f the combined and concerted actions o f The City,

C h i e f W i l h e l m , C A L e d b e t t e r , S h e r i f f S m i t h C A M a r t i n . P l a i n t i f f M a r t i n has s u f f e r e d

and continues to suffer i n j u r y and damages to his reputation and profession as a law

enforcement officer and has incurred attorney?s fees and costs.

17
 R e f oq r Punitive
u e Damages
s t

69. The allegations o f paragraphs 1-68 are re-alleged as i f fully set forth herein.

70. Atall times relevant to this action, the defendants acted willfully, maliciously, and with

the intent to harm plaintiff Martin in his reputation and professional as a law enforcement

officer and to procure his termination from the City o f Waynesboro Police Department.

71. P l a i n t i f f M a r t i n request an award o f punitive damages i n the amount o f $350,000.00.

D E M A N D FOR T R I A L B Y JURY
ER ENIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 3:21 o f the Rules o f the Supreme Court o f V i r g i n i a and §8.01-336, Code o f

Virginia, P l a i n t i f f M a r t i n hereby demandsa t r i a l by j u r y on all issues.

D E M A N D FOR A W A R D OF ATTORNEY?S FEES

eS? ? _ S NS E A T L O R NRE Y ? S F E E S

Pursuant to Rule 3:25 o f the Rules o f the Supreme Court o f Virginia, p l a i n t i f f demands an

award o f attormey?s fees pursuant to §2.2-3011(D), Code o f V i r g i n i a , §40.2-27.3(C), Code o f

V i r g i n i a , and §18.2-500, Code o f V i r g i n i a and for the Court to establish a procedure to determine

such an award.

RELIEF SOUGHT

W H E R E F O R E , b a s e d o n t h e f o r e g o i n g , p l a i n t i f f m o v e s this h o n o r a b l e C o u r t t o e n t e r j u d g m e n t

in his favor against the defendants, j o i n t l y and severally, to award compensatory damages in the

amount o f $1,500,000.00, an award o f treble damages, an award o f $350,000.00 in punitive

damages, as well as an award o f prejudgment interest and an award o f attorney?s fees and costs

incurred in this action and. P l a i n t i f f also requests an Order that the City o f Waynesboro Police

Department reinstate p l a i n t i f f to his former Position as a Captain in the Police Department or an

equivalent position pursuant to §40.2-27.3 and §2.2-3011, Code o f Virginia.

18
 M I C H A E L W. M A R T I N

O f Counsel

W. Barry Montgomery, Esq. (VSB# 43042)

KPM Law
901 Moorefield Park Dr., Suite 200
Richmond, V A 23236
Tel: (804) 320-6300
Fax: (804) 320-6312
Barry.montgomery@kpmlaw.com

19