Friday, December 20, 2013

Earl Key Calls for April Jones's Freedom, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's Impeachment

I previously wrote about April Jones's battle with authoritarian public health officials in Indiana.  Earl Key has filed for a stay in federal court.  He sent me the following email:

Due to the drugging and injuries, April's capabilities have declined significantly since she spoke to you on the phone, but now the U.S. Court of Appeals has ordered her to prove she is competent to continue to proceed. Back in front of the same federal judge who took 8 months to rule on her case and would not stop the drugging when she could. This is so unfair, so wrong, that I simply had to take a long shot at getting Justice Kagan to stop it.

I have attached the Application for Stay. It's not perfect, and I understand that you may not understand some of the legal jargon, but the first 12 pages are primarily factual, so I hope you get an opportunity to read it.

Thank you for listening and for your writings on April.

This is Key's pro se motion:              

Three weeks ago Key had sent this message:

What a long struggle this has been. April's case has now been thrown back to the district court, to determine April's"capacity". This is grotesquely unfair to her because her capacity is deteriorating due to her disease, the length of the proceedings, and the drugging and injuries incurred during her captivity. So I am preparing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay and writ of mandamus to force the lower courts to follow the law. This case will not remain under the public's radar much longer.
Additionally, I will send a letter tomorrow to the U.S. Congress asking for the impeachment of federal district court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. That letter is attached and should explain why I feel so strongly about how the federal courts have abused April's right to liberty. Feel free to use it as you see fit.

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
317 Russell Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Cc: Representative Eric Cantor, House Republican Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 224-3121
November 30th, 2013

Dear Senator McConnell:

This letter is to ask for impeachment proceedings against U.S. District Court Judge
Tanya Walton Pratt.

Judge Pratt, an appointee of President Obama, sits on the bench of the Southern District of Indiana. This request is being made due to Judge Pratt’s violations of Indiana state law and federal law, and because she has usurped the will of the U.S.Congress and the common law of the U.S. Supreme Court. This request is pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

On January 20th and January 27th, 2012, Judge Pratt, a citizen and resident of the State of Indiana, was notified of injuries due to the drugging and neglect of a disabled adult, April Dawn Jones. Ms. Jones is in the custody of an unlawful guardianship mill being run by one of Judge Pratt’s Democratic colleagues on the state bench of Indiana. The state judge has openly admitted to a reporter that he is running a “team” of Democrats that ensnare disabled persons and hand them off to a so-called guardian. Although this clearly violates separation of powers, Judge Pratt has gone out of her way to “validate” this unlawful and unholy team of actors.Included within the verified reports submitted to Judge Pratt were photos of the injuries to Ms. Jones (a 38-year old woman who I had been assisting for many years across State lines before she was “granny-napped” by the Indiana guardianship team).  

Instead of taking injunctive action or notifying Indiana authorities as required by Indiana state law, Ind. Code 12-10-3-9, Judge Pratt sat on the reports for another 4months then attempted to cover up the scheme and the neglect by dismissing the case containing the verified facts and exhibits. Within the dismissal opinion, Judge Pratt attempted to intimidate me from assisting Ms. Jones by disparaging me to the public and the higher courts with the language “whether well-intentioned or not.” The willful delay, cover up, and the disparagement are all contrary to the will of  Congress in passing 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (part of the ADA), which protects those who assist disabled persons in defending their rights, by providing that:It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual... on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.

As part of her opinion, Judge Pratt falsified the parties involved in the suit, by revising the caption to make me the real party in interest and then by relabeling the respondent as “Lamar”. Were these two issues taken separately from the opinion as a whole, one might see them as mere typographical mistakes.Regardless, this is a specific violation of 18 U.S.C. 2071 (b): (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map,book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Also within the dismissal opinion, Judge Pratt usurped the common law of the U.S.Supreme Court by steering around significant Supreme Court case law, all in an obvious but misguided attempt to cover up for the malfeasance of a fellow state judge in Indiana (Judge Pratt is also a 20-year veteran of the Indiana state trial court bench).

Upon seeing the convoluted manner in which Judge Pratt’s opinion misstates theparties and steers around controlling law, one who was familiar with the applicablefederal statutory and common law in this case would come only to the conclusionthat she is not qualified to sit on the federal bench, neither by temperament norability. I cannot prove but do believe that Judge Pratt initiated or used ex parte communications with other Democratic members of Indiana’s legal community to make her decision, all in violation of the Code of Conduct for federal judges.From the research of all of Judge Pratt’s cases over a 2-year span, Judge Pratt’s writings show a particular interest and bias in cases involving abortion rights cases(of which she favors), with bias against white persons, males, and against disabled persons, all contrary to federal law and the U.S. Constitution. (While Ms. Jones was dying awaiting Judge Pratt’s decision, Judge Pratt was instead working to approvemore of Planned Parenthood’s agenda, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 794 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ind. 2011).)

One might draw the conclusion that Judge Pratt favors the death of the unborn and the disabled. Judge Pratt’s techniques in implementing her agenda is not the “good behavior” required of an Article III judge, particularly one whose obsequious writings in finance cases appears to point to higher aspirations.The guardian and judge in control of Ms. Jones have allowed fraud to be committed against the United States by allowing the nursing home to bill the Medicaid and Medicare programs for Ms. Jones care and rehabilitation, when that care and rehabilitation had not been provided to Ms. Jones. Judge Pratt, herself an attorney as well as judge, could not have been unaware that her failure to report the injuriesto Ms. Jones might be aiding and abetting a fraud being perpetrated against the United States of America, contrary to the will of Congress in passing the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.

Due to Judge Pratt’s incompetent, unlawful, and neglectful handling, Ms. Jones’ case has been drawn out for more than two years and she now faces an accelerated death while being drugged and injured at the hands of an unlawful guardianship team.

This request is not in any way to ask the U.S. Congress to intervene in the legal proceedings of the underlying case but rather to take action against Judge Pratt for her violations of Indiana law, federal law, and for usurping the will of the U.S.Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ms. Jones case is now pending before the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, case no. 12-2094, and may be used to independently verify the lower court documents, exhibits, and chronology of events discussed in this letter.From discussing this case with my fellow coworkers and neighbors, I can assure you that reasonable Americans are aghast at this behavior by a federal judge. I I thankyou for your assistance in this matter.

No comments: