THOMAS LOWELL KETCHUM, JR.,CLAIMANT
Vs.
MATTHEW ALLEN BULWINKLE, PAUL DAVID ROBERTS, SCOTTY PETERS, CHRISTI RENA MCCOY,THOMAS CONSTANTINE LEVIDIOTIS, ROBERT E. COCHRANE, RANDALL RATTAN, AND ERIC HOLDER,RESPONDENTS
FEDERAL TORT CLAIM AND DEMAND FOR DAMAGES
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 28 CFR 14.2 &; 28 USC SECTION 2672
1) This tort claim arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears. The Claimant is claiming property and personal injury damages resulting from the denial by the Respondents, and each of them, of his constitutional rights against illegal extradition; his right to keep and bear arms; his rights against unreasonable search and seizure; his right to be held to answer only to the timely indictment of a Grand Jury in his full, true, correct, and legal name; his right to a speedy and public trial before a jury of his peers and his rights to not have bail unreasonably denied and/or cruel and unusual punishments imposed without a decision by a jury of his peers; his right to be free from witness intimidation; his right to not have the Writ of Habeas Corpus denied; his right to confront witnesses against him; and his right to dispense with ineffective counsel and proceed pro se in spite of anunconstitutionally-written statute.
2) This is also an action is based on the proposition that, the Respondents, and each of them, took the damaging actions taken against the Claimant, both individually and in their respective official capacities, acting under color of office and of law, as more fully described below.
3) The Claimant also seeks by this action to compel the Federal Bureau of Investigation to re-open the matter of the murder of the late Suzy Drewery Elliott, formerly of Ripley, Mississippi, as a Federal matter, and to thoroughly investigate and refer for prosecution those found to be culpable in her death and for the obstruction of Justice which has resulted in her killer never being brought to trial under the laws of the State of Mississippi. Claimant notes that the F.B.I. has jurisdiction over corruption of law enforcement officials (including, but not limited to, State Judges) and in cases of murder. The claim here alleges, among other things, that Respondents Bulwinkle, Roberts, Peters, McCoy, Rattan, and Cochrane conspired with Robert W. Elliott to block, on an ongoing basis, the murder investigation into the death of his brother's fourth wife and that, in an effort to keep his brother from being prosecuted, Judge Elliot has enlisted Respondent Bulwinkle, who is a local F.B.I. Agent, together with the other Respondents, and others, to harass, intimidate, discredit and/or otherwise silence witnesses such as the Claimant, as will be more fully shown below.
PARTIES.
1. Claimant, Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr., is a person who is unconstitutionally being held and prosecuted in Federal Court in the place of and instead of the person named in the indictment in case number 1:06CR051-M-D, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Claimant has never been named by his full, true, correct and legal name in any criminal proceeding, whether state or federal, either in the United States or in his home of record, the Republic of Romania, a member state in the European Union.
2. Co-conspirator Robert W. Elliott (hereinafter "Judge Elliot") is a Mississippi State District 3, District Court Judge, living and working in and around Ripley and Tippah County, Mississippi and adjacent counties.
3. Respondent Matthew Allen Bulwinkle (hereinafter "Respondent Bulwinkle" or "Bulwinkle") is a "Special Agent" with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working primarily out of the Tupelo, Mississippi Satellite Office, which reports to the Mississippi Field Office in Jackson, Mississippi.
4. Respondent Paul David Roberts (hereinafter "Respondent Roberts" or "Roberts") is an Assistant United States Attorney, assigned to the Northern District of Mississippi, working primarily out of the Oxford, Mississippi Office.
5. Respondent Scotty Peters (hereinafter "Respondent Peters" or "Peters") is a Supervisory level United States Marshal, assigned to the Northern District of Mississippi, working primarily out of the Oxford, Mississippi Office.
6. Respondent Eric Holder (hereinafter "Respondent Holder" or "Holder") is the Attorney General of the United States, working in and around Washington, District of Columbia.
7. Respondent Christi Rena McCoy (hereinafter "Respondent McCoy" or "McCoy") is a routinely-appointed private attorney, working at all alleged times in this claim under Court appointment pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.
8. Respondent Thomas Constantine Levidiotis (hereinafter "Respondent Levidiotis" or "Levidiotis") is a routinely-appointed private attorney, working at all alleged times in this claim under Court appointment, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.
9. Respondent Randall Rattan (hereinafter "Respondent Rattan" or "Rattan") is a psychologist employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at Fort Worth Federal Correctional Institution in Texas.
10. Respondent Robert E. Cochrane (hereinafter "Respondent Cochrane" or "Cochrane") is a psychologist employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Butner Federal Medical Center in North Carolina.
BACKGROUND AND ACTIONS TAKEN, OVER TIME, BY RESPONDENTS, TO ILLEGALLY DAMAGE CLAIMANT.
1. In October of 1990, a young woman named Suzy Drewery Elliott, the fourth of at least four (4) former wives of Dr. Charles M. Elliott of Ripley, Mississippi, was killed in her home just west of Ripley one evening.
2. Circumstances surrounding this killing had been the subject of heated debate for many months after the death, which was ruled to be a suicide and written-off as such by both the Tippah County Coroner and the Mississippi State Medical Examiner in Jackson, Mississippi. However, according to evidence, meticulously collected and compiled by the father of the victim, an enormous circumstantial case pointed to what seemed to many to be a more logical conclusion. That being that the wife of Dr. Elliott was, in fact, murdered and that the crime scene had been significantly disturbed (apparently, with help) in an attempt to make the death appear to be a suicide.
3. There were a multitude of things wrong with the suicide theory being advanced both by Dr. Elliott and his brother, Judge Elliott. Among them was the fact that the victim had no powder burns on her flesh anywhere, including her hands (from allegedly firing a handgun) or elsewhere on her body. Further, there were no powder burns on her clothing that police had found her dressed in when they arrived -an hour or so after her death was first reported to them.
4. Although, at the time, the investigation into the death of Suzy Drewery Elliott was officially closed and called a suicide by the police, the victim's father and a great many others never believed the official story. However, without a confession or other proof, the matter of her death would remain closed.
5. In March of 1991, the Claimant was summoned by phone to Mississippi by his relatives while he was living and working in the San Francisco area, to return to Mississippi and visit his father, whom he was told was dying by Dr. Charles M. Elliott. Dr. Elliott and the father of the Claimant (the late Dr. Thomas Lowell Ketchum) were business partners, former next door neighbors, and friends of many years. At the time of the phone call in early 1991, the Claimant had known nothing of the events concerning the death of Dr. Elliott's most recent wife.
6. When he arrived in Memphis by air, Claimant drove straight to Baptist Hospital to see his father. When he located his room, he entered and his father was sleeping, with a number of tubes in his arms, nose, and elsewhere and Claimant's brother, David, and the second wife of Claimant's father (Minnie Jean Wiggs Ketchum) were present.
7. Within seconds, Claimant's father was awake and seemed a bit shocked to see him. After a few words of mutual greeting, Claimant's brother and Minnie Jean left the room and Claimant's father quickly asked the Claimant," How did you find out?". To this, the Claimant responded, "Your partner, Dr. Elliott, told me you have liver cancer and are dying.".
8. At that point, Claimant's father suddenly sat up in bed, tubes and all, and his eyes became very wide open and he spoke, forcefully, "I find that PARTICULARLY DISTURBING, especially after all I did for Charlie (Dr. Elliott) about the mess with his wife!".
9. Claimant had no idea what the father was talking about and, for the moment, wrote it off to delirium from his condition, or his drugs, or both. After a while, the visit concluded and Claimant left to see the parents of his father, who lived in Ripley, Mississippi, that day.
10. After a period in the home of his grandparents (Dr. Ketchum's parents), Claimant repeated what his father had said about Dr. Elliott and asked them what he might have meant by what was said.
11. Claimant's grandfather explained that it was about the "suicide" of Dr. Elliott's former wife and the fact that the "whole town" had been buzzing about the possible involvement of Claimant's father or others in "a cover-up" ever since the killing had happened.
12. The more his grandfather told him about it, the more the Claimant was sure that the next stop had to be at the home of the father of the victim, Kelly Drewery, a gunsmith, who lived near the Pine Hill Golf and Country Club, just east of town.
13. Claimant paid Kelly a visit that same day and told him what his father had said and asked him about it. Kelly explained how the words of Claimant's father, a man contemplating his imminent death, were to be construed as a confession, admissible in Court, and then Kelly immediately produced a voluminous "file", which he had compiled, containing reports, official and unofficial, and other records and documents, related to the death of his daughter.
14. Kelly was certain that Claimant's father was called to the scene either by or on behalf of Dr. Elliott, when he panicked after killing his wife in one of his many fits of rage. Kelly was sure that Claimant's father had changed her clothing and maybe even moved Suzy's body before the police arrived at the crime scene. According to Kelly, Judge Elliott had "handled" law enforcement by calling-in favors owed to him over the years.
15. Claimant told Kelly, at the time, that his theories seemed a stretch, no matter how suspicious everything else may have seemed. Claimant's concerns were for his father and his imminent death and his reputation. Claimant did not like his father being implicated in a murder.
16. Over Claimant's objections, it was Kelly, alone, who went to the New York Times and ended-up getting a story published there soon afterwards, to the effect that Dr. Elliott had murdered his wife, that Claimant's father was involved in "a cover-up", along with Judge Elliott and several of his well-connected friends at every level of government (including the F.B.I.). Dr. Elliott later unsuccessfully sued Kelly Drewery and the Claimant for libel and slander right after the story ran.
17. In the period just after the death of Dr. Ketchum, Claimant struggled to stay focused on the accounting of the estate. When Claimant got the final accounting, his suspicions ballooned concerning just how illegally the estate was being administered by Judge Elliott. Complainant had detected insurance fraud concerning the purchase of a new Cadillac, just days before the death of Dr. Ketchum, on "credit life" in his name. Complainant saw transactions like the delivery of about $30,000.00 in antiques, purchased on credit in the name of the Complainant's father, less than a week prior to his eventual death and at least one credit card transaction for over $6,000.00 at a Memphis department store, in the name of the Complainant's father, and similarly proximate in time to his death.
18. The way the Complainant saw it, Judge Elliot had retaliated against HIM by using the estate accounting to steal from the Complainant and the other heirs, and had done so with the help of the Plaintiff's father's widow (Minnie Jean Wiggs Ketchum), AFTER word had reached him (Judge Elliott) about the Claimant's discussion with Kelly Drewery and BEFORE the actual death of Claimant's father, Dr. Ketchum.
19. Judge Elliott had other problems, too. Judge Elliott was representing the estate of the Claimant's late father. He was also representing the Peoples Bank of Ripley and other adverse claimants against the estate. Furthermore, Judge Elliott was also representing his brother, Dr. Charles M. Elliott, in his (Dr. Elliott's) purchase of the Complainant's father's shares of their medical clinic and two nursing homes, at an obscene discount, thereby embezzling over $1,000,000.00 worth of assets (and the lifetime income stream from these) from the heirs - especially the Claimant. These actions and others like them convinced the Claimant that the conduct of Robert W. Elliott, an attorney at-law, had violated Rule 1.7B of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Mississippi State Bar Association, which deals with conflicts of interests.
20. Mindful of the above facts, the Claimant attended a session of the Tippah County Chancery Court which was to decide on the periodic payment of alleged "expenses" related to the administration of the estate. Prior to this session, the Claimant filed complaints with the Commissioner of Insurance and with the Mississippi State Bar Association concerning the misconduct of Judge Elliott, as it related to his representation of the estate of the Claimant's late father.
21. On the day of Court, when he was finally given a chance to speak, the Claimant called Judge Elliot to the stand.
22. Under oath, Judge Elliott admitted to representing both the estate of the Claimant's late father and the Peoples Bank of Ripley, as adverse parties. Furthermore, he admitted that he was handling all matters related to the transfer of the late Dr. Ketchum's holdings in several business ventures to his brother, Dr. Charles M. Elliott. During Claimant's examination of Judge Elliott, Claimant was threatened, on-the-record, with arrest by the Chancery Court Judge, the late Anthony Farese of Ashland, Mississippi, for attempting to make an Offer of Proof.
23. After the hearing, the Claimant obtained a transcript and formulated a "Petition of Protest Concerning the Accounting and Administration of the Estate of Dr. Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Deceased". The Claimant filed the original transcript and one copy of the "Petition" with the Tippah County Court Clerk and mailed copies to Judge Elliott. Claimant kept copies of everything for his records.
24. When Judge Elliott got his copies, he filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and a hearing was scheduled soon afterwards. On the dates of the hearing, Judge Farese discovered that Judge Elliott had made a tactical blunder by his Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions since any appeal by the Claimant of any adverse ruling would have bypassed every little "good ole boy" committee that Judge Elliot and Judge Farese had influence over and laid the matter of both Judge Elliott's and Judge Farese's misconduct directly before the Mississippi Supreme Court. There, the Court could have taken away Farese's judgeship and Judge Elliott's license to practice law.
25. Realizing all this, Judge Farese convinced the Claimant to step into his chambers with Judge Elliott and his entourage in an effort to negotiate a settlement. By the end of the day, Claimant got a check for $37,500.00 and some of his late father's firearms (a 410 shotgun, a 12 gauge shotgun, an M-1 Carbine and a Winchester 30-30). Claimant also got Judge Elliott promising him something to the effect that he would "never have a life worth living in Mississippi" and that he had best take his check and his guns and leave the state.
26. The Claimant refused to leave Mississippi and Judge Elliott soon began making good on his threats. He took a letter the Claimant had written to his mother, warning her about the Elliotts and their motives and then, almost immediately, Respondent Bulwinkle's associates at the Tupelo FBI office "interviewed" the Claimant for about 2 hours, which resulted in the Claimant being labeled "a dangerous person" (a kind of official slander). As earlier mentioned, while legally representing his brother (Dr. Charles M. Elliott), Judge Elliott unsuccessfully sued both Kelly Drewery and the Claimant for libel and slander. Judge Elliott also twice attempted to orchestrate (once successfully in 1996) getting the Claimant fired from his job at the Tupelo Post Office.
27. Between 1996 and 2002, Judge Elliott used his influence to ensure that the Claimant got fired from almost any descent job that he managed to get. He also had the Postal Inspectors and his new friend, Respondent Bulwinkle, mail a Treasury check and numerous pre-approved credit applications to the Claimant, at his address, in the name of a woman who had not held or rented that same P.O. Box for at least the previous six years and kept attempting to set the Claimant up for some kind of mail fraud "sting".
28. Because the Claimant had just gotten a new job at Catalina Marketing in 2001 and did not want a public scandal, the Claimant made a deal with another of Judge Elliott's friends, Respondent Roberts, which should have resulted in the Claimant getting probation only. The Claimant had not taken a penny from anyone and owed nothing to anyone. In addition, the charges brought by Respondents Roberts and Bulwinkle, in the form of an "information" as opposed to an "indictment", were never in the Claimant's full, true, correct, or legal name and the Claimant repeatedly tried to bring this issue to the attention of the Court. At no time was the "information" ever amended by anyone. Accordingly, the Claimant has no criminal records in his full, true, correct, and legal name.
29. In 2002, the Claimant won his EEOC Case and the fight was on about his back-pay. While the Claimant fought this battle, the Postal Service (with the urging of both Judge Elliott and Respondent Bulwinkle) tried to make something out of what had transpired in Court in 2001 and tried, anew, to fire the Claimant. The Claimant was so very stressed by all these events that he sought professional psychiatric help and, after an extensive evaluation, psychotropic drug therapy (including Lexapro), and other treatment, the Claimant applied for and was granted a full disability retirement from the Postal Service and the Social Security Administration based on diagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The retirement legally cancelled the plans of the Postal Service to fire the Claimant again.
30. In the period from 2002-2003, when the Claimant finally got his Post Office job back, along with about $300,000.00 in back-pay and benefits, and a monthly disability retirement check for life, Judge Elliott became furious and again had his FBI man in Tupelo, Respondent Bulwinkle, try new ways to get to the Claimant. Finally, between the OPM Disability retirement award in 2004 and the date the Claimant decided to legally leave the United States in 2005, Respondent Bulwinkle recruited the wife of the Claimant and persuaded her to work against the Claimant. She admits this in official records connected with this most recent illegal prosecution of the Claimant.
31. On or about April 16, 2005, Respondent Bulwinkle, together with Respondent Peters and Lee County Sheriff Deputies, conducted a search of the home of the Claimant pursuant to a warrant signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander. During the search, a computer and a number of papers were seized, along with the firearms obtained from Judge Elliott over ten years earlier. The guns were not listed on the search warrant and were not in plain sight. The Claimant was not arrested or restricted as to movement in any way on this occasion.
32. Approximately nine (9) days later, during Claimant's physical absence from his home, Respondents Bulwinkle and Peters returned to the home and were allowed entry by the wife of the Claimant, Suki Jennifer Ketchum, with another warrant (this one listing firearms and pretending for all the world like the first search, the one on the 16th, had never happened). Respondent Bulwinkle later falsely represented under oath, that the search of the home of the Claimant on or about April 25 or 26 (there is yet another discrepancy in the indictment) was the first and only search of the home of the Claimant and, that it was on this later occasion that ALL the items which had already been seized, were actually taken: more perjury by Respondent Bulwinkle.
33. Approximately eleven (11) months passed after the two (2) searches of the home of the Claimant, when Respondent Bulwinkle was asked by Respondent Roberts to testify before a Federal Grand Jury in the Spring of 2006 (some nine months after both Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts were certain the Claimant had legally left the United States and was now legally residing in Romania..more about that later). Based on the information that Respondent Bulwinkle had reported in his form 302s, Bulwinkle had reported to both the FBI in Jackson and to Respondent Roberts that the full, true, correct and legal name of the Claimant was "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.". However, Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts made a pre-meditated decision to seek a Grand Jury indictment, not in the true name of the Claimant, but in the name of his dead father, "Thomas Lowell Ketchum". The major problem with what they did, from a legal standpoint, was that BOTH Respondent Bulwinkle and Respondent Roberts failed to tell the Grand Jury that "Thomas Lowell Ketchum" was a dead man at the time. Therefore, for all the Grand Jury knew, they were indicting "Thomas Lowell Ketchum" and NOT "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.". In any event, the indictment was thereafter immediately "sealed", without any stated cause or reason given, for some time in the future, since it was openly admitted that the sealing was not to prevent the Claimant from leaving the United States. As will be more fully shown below, Respondents Bulwinkle, Roberts, and Peters, together with Judge Elliot, knew EXACTLY where the Claimant was at all times.
34. Sometime after the Grand Jury returned the indictment SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY RESPONDENTS BULWINKLE AND ROBERTS, they were dismissed in the Spring of 2006 and life went on. This included the fact that the Claimant was living openly in Romania and receiving mail on a regular basis, addressed to him in Romania, from both the Social Security Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and other US government entities, with even his "Air Force" magazine being delivered to his doorstep in Bucharest. The Claimant was even visited and interviewed by the U.S. Commercial Services branch of the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest less than five (5) weeks after Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts claim that there was an indictment against the Claimant. Claimant was "vetted" by the Embassy at the time and nothing came up in his name or he would surely have been arrested and extradited to the United States to face this bogus "indictment".
35. During 2007, Claimant appeared at the American Citizens Services Section of the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest, presented his passport, and made application for marriage to a Romanian citizen (Claimant was legally divorced from Suki in December of 2005). During this period, Claimant did not experience any legal trouble of any kind and, similarly, was not told of any reason why he might need to return to the United States. For that matter, Claimant was also told that he had no legal problems in Romania, either, and that none were anticipated.
36. Later in 2007, Claimant's Mississippi driver license was turned over to Romanian authorities, along with the results of a physical examination and, at the time, had his background checked, in-depth, by Romanian Security Officials in support of Claimant's application for a Romanian driver license. The U.S. Embassy was sent the Claimant's Mississippi driver license, which forwarded the license to the State Police in Mississippi, along with Claimant's current address and other current contact information. If any warrant had existed in Claimant's full, true, correct, or legal name, then the State Police in Mississippi would have acted immediately and sought his extradition from Romania. In the end, nothing happened with law enforcement on that occasion because no valid warrant, or indictment existed in Claimant's full, true, correct, or legal name of "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.".
37. During 2008, Claimant made a decision to vote by absentee ballot for President of the United States. In connection with this, Claimant sent a formal, written request to the County Clerk in Lee County, Mississippi (Tupelo), where Claimant was registered to vote. As a matter of routine, registered voter lists are checked for felony warrants and convictions prior to elections. This is done because certain felonies bar citizens from voting in Mississippi. Further, and significantly, the existence of an outstanding felony warrant would, again, trigger the involvement of law enforcement. Claimant sent his request and Claimant was mailed an absentee ballot form, which Claimant then took to the Embassy in Bucharest and executed before a Consular Officer..all without incident..presumably because there was nothing to bar the Claimant from voting (e.g. outstanding felony warrant in his name or felony conviction for any listed disenfranchising offence in Mississippi in his name).
38. Sometime in the Spring of 2009, Claimant got a notice from Social Security that they needed for him to visit a physician in Tupelo or somewhere else in the United States for a periodic examination. Since Claimant felt that this was inconvenient, Claimant offered to see a physician in Romania, to be designated by the Embassy, but Social Security said that was not good enough. In the end, they discontinued Claimant's 100% Mental Disability Payments and Claimant needed to interact with the American Citizen Services staff at the Embassy in order to make an adjustment to Claimant's 100% Mental Disability Payments from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In connection with this, a LOT of detailed information was taken from the Claimant and delivered to the Social Security Office in Tupelo, Mississippi, which was the last place Claimant had lived in the United States. At that time, Claimant specifically requested to know the precise reason for the discontinuation of his Mental Disability Payments. He further specifically asked if the reason either was or might be some kind of legal trouble of which he was unaware. Repeatedly, the Embassy staff (and Social Security personnel in Greece, which handles European ex-pat retirees) assured him that legal trouble was NOT the issue. According to them, the problem was simply that Claimant had not seen a physician when they thought he should and for that reason, alone, his Social Security Disability Payments had been suspended.
39. For the bulk of 2010, Claimant became more interested in pursuing Romanian citizenship so that he could remain, for life, with his new wife (whom he legally married in 2007) and Claimant took steps to formally apply for citizenship there. Included in these steps was the need to renew Claimant's U.S. passport, which was set to expire in August of 2010. The Romanian authorities had said that they required a valid passport from the country of origin to be submitted, along with Claimant's other documentation. Claimant saw this as a reasonable request and Claimant had absolutely no reason to think that he had any problems in the United States, since the Embassy had repeatedly checked into his background for outstanding warrants in his name. Accordingly, Claimant made an appointment to renew his passport and obtained the photo, U.S. currency for the passport fee and the other items required by the Embassy and proceeded to the appointment. Only when Claimant actually applied for passport renewal was he told that anything was wrong and, even then, nobody acted like they were sure about what, exactly, the problem might be. Claimant was told, " If you don't hear from us in the next two weeks, call us.". It was about ten (10) days later that Claimant was arrested in his second home, near Buzau, and there, the business about the wrong name on some indictment and warrant was first made known to him.
40. On or about 02 September 2010, Claimant was arrested in Buzau Judet (county) and was transported to Ploesti by police forces, who first delivered Claimant to the main police station there. While with the police, Claimant was repeatedly asked to sign documents which stated that he was, in fact, "Thomas Lowell Ketchum". Claimant refused to sign them. Later that day, he was taken to the Romanian version of the District Attorney, who questioned him in the presence of a court-appointed lawyer, which the Claimant had demanded. The prosecutor asked Claimant about the name again and Claimant explained to him that his full, true, correct, and legal name was "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.". Hearing this, the prosecutor took his pen and created a work of fiction on the spot. He changed the name on the INTERPOL warrant from "Thomas Lowell Ketchum" to "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr." and then went on to falsely represent to the appellate court in Ploesti that, somehow, the U.S. warrant, upon which the INTERPOL warrant was based, had always been "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.", when, in fact, it was not.
41. Claimant demanded to see people from his Embassy and they showed up at Campina prison where Claimant was being held on 03 September 2010. At the first of two (2) meetings on that day, the first 2 U.S. Consular Officers asked Claimant to fill-out a standard questionnaire for contacting relatives. Claimant filled-out the forms and explained, repeatedly, that his name was "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr." and that they KNEW this from their repeated interactions with him, over the years. The second meeting was with someone they identified as "The RSO" (Regional Security Officer) from the Embassy. This man, was, in fact, from the Central Intelligence Agency. He began to explain to the Claimant that, "You can either waive extradition and we will come for you in 8 to 10 days or you can ROT in a Romanian prison for the next 2 months and we will get you anyway.". Claimant's response was "Go to work.". He responded with, "You will see me again", to which Claimant replied, "I don't think so. Warrants can be quashed.".
42. On or about October 29, 2010, Claimant filed a petition for political asylum with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Bucharest and with the Ministry of Justice on Romania, which blocked Claimant's extradition for a time. It took until late November of 2010 just to get a copy of the documents the Americans said they were using to try and get the Claimant extradited.
43. Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts had deliberately gone to the Grand Jury and indicted in the wrong name, then they later falsely swore affidavits in support of the earlier defective indictment. This perjury by Federal Officers caused the fraudulent indictment, false arrest and false imprisonment of the Claimant and damages flow from this original act by these two men.
44. In late November of 2010, from his jail cell in Romania, Claimant, over a period of several days, wrote what turned out to be a seven (7) page letter to Respondent Holder, which explained what had happened long ago with the murder in Mississippi and the feud with the Elliott family that had followed. He also pointed out the many defects (including the basis in perjury by Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts) in the "indictment" being used to illegally extradite him and requested that Respondent Holder intervene and stop his illegal and unconstitutional extradition from Romania, which violated a standing Treaty of Extradition between the two countries.
45. Claimant smuggled the letter out of prison on or about 12-07-2010 and, within a matter of days, Claimant's wife had faxed the letter to Respondents Holder and Roberts, the Office of Inspector General, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and to Judge Elliott. The letter effectively put everyone on notice that they were in for a big, ugly legal battle if this illegal extradition went forward.
46. Possibly because it was written by hand, it may have been hard to read. However, the OIG understood the contents well enough to respond about 2 months later, by mail, to Claimant in Romania. They referred the matter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for possible assistance. It appears the 5th Circuit got the OIG response and Claimant's letter about the same time that Respondent Peters was busy kidnapping Claimant from Romania. Respondent Roberts did nothing with the letter as did Respondent Holder. The callous disregard for Plaintiff's 5th Amendment right to be held to answer to an indictment of a Grand Jury, together with his knowing participation in Claimant's illegal extradition caused Respondent Holder to violate the rights of the Plaintiff.
47. 205 days after Claimant's initial arrest, and, after MUCH illegal interference in his Romanian due process rights by assorted "goons" within the U.S. Embassy, Claimant was literally taken in the middle of the night by two masked Romanian Security Force members ("Jandameria"), along with two Romanian Secret Police members ("Securitate"), and two policemen who had been guarding Claimant for the previous seven (7) months, and was driven to the airport in Bucharest, arriving at around 0500 local time. Later, Respondent Peters and one of his subordinate Marshals arrived along with a Romanian Justice Ministry Liaison translator, to take Claimant back to the USA. At the time of the transfer, Respondent Peters had come with a special 5-day passport, which was issued in Claimant's full, true, correct, and legal name of "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.". This presented a problem for the Romanian translator (whose job included making sure they got the right guy). The Romanian Official asked Respondent Peters to explain the discrepancy between the name on the passport and the name on ALL OF THEIR EXTRADITION DOCUMENTS, which was "Thomas Lowell Ketchum". Respondent Peters responded curtly, "We'll take care of that when we get back to the USA. Just get us on the plane and we'll take it from there.". This is how the Claimant was kidnapped by Respondent Peters and illegally boarded onto a KLM flight for Amsterdam on the morning of March 25, 2011.
48. After their arrival in Memphis, Claimant was transported to Oxford, Mississippi, to the Lafayette County Detention Center, where he was told he would wait until the following Monday for arraignment. It is noteworthy here to mention that the legal authority for arresting "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr." EXPIRED at midnight, local time in Bucharest on the evening of 25-26 March, 2011. Further, Respondent Peters refused to place the Claimant under formal arrest and never read him his "Miranda" rights, even though he was plainly being taken into U.S. federal custody. Claimant learned later that, in spite of never having read him "Miranda", Respondent Peters fraudulently returned the arrest warrant for "Thomas Lowell Ketchum" as "executed" on March 25, 2011. To this date, Claimant has never been read his "Miranda" rights and has never been "formally" placed under arrest in his own name and never made to sign anything reflecting that such an event ever took place.
49. On or about 28 March 2011 (that Monday), Claimant was not taken for arraignment, but was, instead, taken across the street by subordinates of Respondent Peters and repeatedly told to sign documents to the effect that his name was, in fact, "Thomas Lowell Ketchum" and NOT "Thomas Lowell Ketchum, Jr.". This, the Claimant repeatedly refused to do, so the attending subordinate Marshals of Respondent Peters started calling him "a*****e" a lot and went on to take a DNA sample, thereafter delivering him back to the jail.
50. On or about 29 March 2011, Claimant was taken again to the Courthouse and, this time, was given a copy of the indictment of "Thomas Lowell Ketchum". When Magistrate Judge Sanders asked Claimant if he was given a copy of the charges, Claimant responded that he saw the paper and that the charges thereon were not in his full, true, correct, and legal name. Therefore, Claimant asserted, they did not apply to him. When questioned further on this point, Claimant also responded that he had no attorney and no plans for one at the moment. Judge Sanders then told the Claimant that he would "send someone to talk to" Claimant. Later that day, Claimant met Respondent Christi Rena McCoy in an Attorney visit room at the Lafayette County Detention Center.
51. At the initial interview on March 29, 2011, Claimant asked McCoy if she knew or had any dealings with the Elliot family in Ripley, and, in particular, either Judge Elliott or Dr. Charles M. Elliott. She responded that she had. She went on the state that she had represented Kelly Drewery (father of the late Suzy Drewery Elliott) in an action against Dr. Charles M. Elliott . It was not clear from this revelation whether she was talking about when Kelly and Claimant were being sued for libel and slander or whether maybe this was some wrongful death suit about which Claimant knew nothing. In any case, Claimant was a little surprised to hear this and immediately related the events from two decades earlier, involving his late father and Kelly Drewery.
52. At this point, McCoy looked Claimant straight in the eyes and stated, flatly, "Charlie Elliott DID kill her (Suzy). That is an absolute fact.". McCoy did not reveal how she "knew" what she had said, but she was very believable at the time.
53. Claimant then related his belief that Judge Elliott was "pulling strings" to prosecute him illegally. McCoy did not deny that this was a realistic possibility. In any case, the Claimant, at that point, felt certain that she (McCoy) was, at least, "the enemy of my enemy", and, from that point onward, did nothing to actively resist her appointment as CJA. Only later did Claimant learn that she had requested his case and had failed to disclose to him her recent nomination for, and current pursuit of, an appointment as United States Attorney for Mississippi. In any case, she cajoled him into thinking that it was harmless to speak with her and that she could "help" him. In the end, the record reflects that McCoy had already been appointed as CJA Counsel of Record for Claimant, without his prior request, permission, or consent.
54. That Thursday, McCoy and the Claimant appeared in Court, tentatively for arraignment, but Claimant insisted to deal with the issue of the defective indictment then and there. Only later did the Claimant learn that what happened on that day and the next 5 days which followed was planned, in advance, by Respondents Bulwinkle, Roberts, and McCoy to make it appear that McCoy was representing the Claimant diligently, when, in fact, a deal had already been struck to allow Respondent Roberts to change the name on the Grand Jury indictment and allow the prosecution of the Claimant to go forward. She accomplished this by pretending to oppose an Ore Tenus motion by Respondent Roberts to amend the Grand Jury Indictment, but failing and refusing to file the memorandum of points and authorities in support of her alleged "opposition" to the Motion to Amend by Respondent Roberts. According to the FRCrP and the Local Rules of the Court, failure to FILE a memorandum of points and authorities in support of whatever you are pleading is, de facto, consent to have whatever you are pleading DENIED or REJECTED.
55. That same Thursday, McCoy pretended to start on the subject of the defective indictment and the prosecutor quickly tried to act like the Claimant had no right to be tried by a Grand Jury Indictment. In fact, he stated, on the record, "If you dismiss this indictment, we will just file an information and go from there", which, of course, he could not legally do. Thereafter, he soon made the Ore Tenus Motion to amend the Grand Jury Indictment. The Magistrate Judge, instead of throwing out the idea immediately as unconstitutional, told everyone to go and send her a brief on the subject and that she would rule the next week. The next week came and, before the hearing, McCoy showed the Claimant what appeared to be her responsive pleading, with points and authorities, opposing the Ore Tenus Motion to Amend the Grand Jury Indictment. At the time, it seemed like Magistrate Judge Alexander ruled erroneously to allow the amendment, but the record clearly shows now that she was simply giving Respondent Roberts what Roberts and McCoy had agreed upon. Claimant has since filed ethics complaints against both Respondents McCoy and Roberts for these acts of misconduct and treachery.
56. Later, during the same hearing where the pretense of opposition was made by Claimant's appointed CJA lawyer, McCoy made an oral motion for an 18 USC 4241 competency examination, which was immediately joined in by Respondent Roberts. Even at the time, Claimant had informed McCoy that this was not what he wanted or needed, but, instead, that she should explore the possibility of something called "diminished mental capacity", based on Claimant's earlier extensive documentation provided by both a Clinical Psychologist (Donna Smith) and a Neuropsychiatrist (Mark Webb). McCoy took only tacit notice of this in her motion, but nonetheless insisted on a Bureau of Prisons 4241 competency examination (to be done at a Federal Medical Center (FMC)), stating that there was no legal choice but to ask for this if she was going to use the strategy Claimant had recommended.
57. Later, on or about 04-15-2011, Claimant was placed on the airlift for Oklahoma City and, six days after that, he arrived at Fort Worth FCI by bus. This is important because there is applicable case law that states that a Federal Medical Center (FMC) is the appropriate place for psychiatric examinations and NOT an FCI. There is also unanimous case law stating that the competency examination itself, should have been done on an outpatient basis. Further, there had been no filing by the CJA attorney of any Notice under Rule 12.2 FRCrP, which would have permitted the government to remand Claimant to the custody of the Attorney General for a determination as to "sanity at the time of the alleged offences" under 18 USC 4242. In any case, ordering Claimant for this type of examination at a legally inappropriate place had the effect of stopping the "speedy trial clock" as a listed "excludable days" period, when, as an outpatient, few, if any, days lost would have been lost for "speedy trial" purposes. For these reasons and each of them, Claimant lists this conduct toward him as having violated his 6th Amendment right to a "speedy trial" by abusing the mental health evaluation process and associated statutes.
58. Because he was upset with McCoy and did not understand as yet why she had done this with him, Claimant located a Texas private investigator and had him investigate McCoy. That is when Claimant got the proof of her nomination for and pursuit of the United States Attorney appointment. Claimant also communicated with Chief Judge Michael P. Mills more than once, including his first attempt to file a 28 USC 2241 Habeas Corpus petition by mail. Ultimately, Claimant fired McCoy and gave notice of his intention to proceed Pro Se, pending his ability and opportunity to find a lawyer from outside the Northern District of Mississippi.
59. Judge Mills would have none of this. He based his decision on the unconstitutional language of 18 USC 4247(d), which mandates representation by an attorney for anyone involved in such a hearing, if the hearing is about them..even if they had never previously been found to be "incompetent". In doing this, the Judge utterly ignored the Supreme Court decision in "Faretta vs. California", 422 US 806, 45 L Ed 2d 562, 95 S Ct. 2525 (1975). By taking this unconstitutional position with respect to the Claimant, Chief Judge Michael P. Mills violated Claimant's rights under the 6th Amendment and appears to have done so, largely based on the false representations of both Judge Elliot and ALL of the Respondents, and each of them.
60. Once the Judge had set Claimant down the "no exit, path of no return" into the part of the legal system that is something of a "Mental Health Gulag", the Claimant never had control of his criminal case again. All of this resulted, cumulatively, from the wanton and reckless disregard of Claimant's civil rights by all of the Respondents, and each of them, which was done in their zeal to silence Claimant on the issue of Judge Elliott and the murder of Suzy Drewery Elliott by Judge Elliott's brother, Dr. Charles M. Elliott.
61. On his way out of Texas, Claimant spent another 6 days in Oklahoma and there tried to sign a representation contract with David Ogle, a prominent criminal trial lawyer there. Respondent Peters had Claimant moved before he could sign a contract with Ogle, after Respondent Peters had previously approved and permitted the BOP to arrange the appointment for Claimant and Ogle to meet to sign the contract on a Saturday. Respondent Peters moved Claimant early that Friday morning, prior to the previously scheduled Saturday meeting.
62. Soon after his return to Mississippi, Claimant learned that his wife in Romania had filed an inappropriate Habeas petition for him and he also learned that Judge Mills had agreed to release McCoy. However, Judge Mills refused to allow Claimant to proceed Pro Se and appointed another CJA lawyer, Thomas Constantine Levitiotis, "for all future representation of Ketchum". Claimant reacted by filing his own 28 USC 2241 Habeas Petition and, when he had learned of the inappropriate 2255 petition, he tried to correct the situation, but it was to no avail. Judge Mills had already made up his mind that Claimant was never going to control his own destiny in the criminal case. He, apparently, instructed Levidiotis to ignore Claimant's representation requests as well.
63. Within 5 weeks of Claimant's return to Mississippi, Levidiotis showed up and told Claimant that he would be sent away because he was found to be "incompetent to assist counsel". This was based in part on the fact that Judge Mills, after conferring with Judge Elliott, could not understand why, after what had transpired, "on the record", Claimant refused to trust any lawyers in the Northern District of Mississippi. The other reason, stated in the "forensic report" by Respondent Rattan, however, was that Claimant had related the history about Judge Elliott and the murder "cover-up", and, for THIS reason, was found to be "incompetent to assist Counsel".
64. Claimant filed all manner of Pro Se motions to try and stop all this. Claimant even filed an Interlocutory Appeal with the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. Claimant also filed another "Notice of Pro Se Election" with the Court and served everyone according to the Rules. It was all for nothing. The Court scheduled and held an 18 USC 4247(d) hearing and Claimant was not allowed to say anything. Ultimately, Judge Mills ruled that Claimant was to be sent somewhere to allegedly have his competency "restored" or, in the alternative, discover whether or not that was possible and to see whether or not Claimant could proceed Pro Se. Nothing was mentioned at the hearing about determining "sanity" at the time of the alleged offences, including in the testimony of so-called "expert" witnesses. Furthermore, no FRCrP Rule 12.2 Notice had been filed on behalf of the Claimant either prior to, during, or after the 18 USC 4247(d) hearing.
65. Soon after the 4247(d) hearing, Claimant was told that the Order had been signed and Claimant requested a copy to see and keep for his records. Only then did he learn that the Order contained a provision to determine whether or not he was "insane at the time of the alleged offences". In any case, more than 5 weeks passed after the Order was signed and then, with very little warning, Claimant was put on a plane for Oklahoma again. Less than 5 days after that, Claimant was transferred to Butner Federal Medical Center (FMC), North Carolina, which is in the 4th Circuit and got there on or about 10-19-2011 for another "study" and "competency restoration".
66. Beginning with his arrival at Butner FMC, on or about 19 October 2011, the Claimant was subjected to several interviews where nearly everything he said was called, or treated as, "a delusion" by Respondent Cochrane at Butner. He, of course, never bothered to check anything and, almost immediately, began asking Claimant if he would take psychotropic medication in order "to correct" his thinking.
67. Within a matter of weeks after his arrival at Butner, Claimant had formulated another 28 USC 2241 Habeas Corpus Petition and had filed it with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Claimant also formulated a "Motion to Dismiss" for the Mississippi Court, along with a "Motion for Release Without Bail", and a "Petition for 18 USC 4247(d) Hearing", wherein Claimant tried to subpoena witnesses in order to show that he was "competent" and that he could not be forced to accept psychotropic medication, involuntarily. None of the Courts in either state paid any attention to any of these pleadings, at least in part, because of the fraudulent representations that had been submitted to the Mississippi and North Carolina Federal Courts by all of the Respondents, and each of them.
68. In the "forensic report", signed 03/13/2012, Respondent Cochrane finds that Claimant has met ALL of the usual "Dusky Standard" elements of "competency" in the traditional sense, "However, Mr. Ketchum would almost certainly file erroneous motions, attempt to subpoena irrelevant witnesses, and POSSIBLY make inappropriate statements in open court. He believes he is being persecuted by Judge Elliot and others and is intent on notifying everyone of this." (Emphasis Added). He goes on to state, "In summary, it appears that Mr. Ketchum's delusional beliefs would result in him behaving inappropriately in court..and he plans to make legal decisions based at least in part, on his paranoid delusions..This appears to be the case whether he has counsel or would proceed Pro Se..Given the above, Mr. Ketchum is considered incompetent to stand trial. He is also incompetent to proceed Pro Se, even if he had shadow counsel.". Plainly, it was ALL about silencing the Claimant concerning Judge Elliott and not at all about any objective standard of "competence" to stand trial.
69. After a lot of controversy about possible forced medication for a "mental illness" that never existed, the Claimant was dragged back to Mississippi, unnecessarily, for yet another 4247(d) hearing. It took five (5) weeks after the "study" ended just to get a hearing scheduled which would only serve to return the Claimant back to Butner for yet another perfunctory "study", this time for "dangerousness". 33 days after the Hearing, Claimant was returned to Butner, but not before he was labeled a "dangerous inmate" by Respondent Peters and shipped in "black box" handcuffs and made to stay with high-risk inmates at Atlanta Federal Prison.
70. On the 8th of May, the Claimant was finally returned to Butner and his "45 day study" was finished in less than seven (7) days. Ever since his "risk assessment panel" concluded, Claimant has remained in custody, while everyone is already on notice that he is not "dangerous" and now, by law, must be released.
71. There is one other salient point about Claimant's alleged "delusional disorder". The "official report", above-cited, written and signed by Respondent Cochrane and a staff psychiatrist, reflects their having interviewed many people in their evaluation of the alleged mental health condition of the Claimant. Among them, was, apparently, Judge Robert W. Elliott, himself.
72. The "smoking gun" is found on page 10 of 14 of the "forensic report" from Butner FMC, above-cited, written by Respondent Cochrane. It reads, "While theoretically possible, it is difficult to imagine that these events really took place, BUT THE JUDGE (Judge Elliott) REMAINS CONCERNED ABOUT MR. KETCHUM AND HAS TAKEN ONGOING EFFORTS OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS TO ENSURE HE DOES NOT BRING THIS INFORMATION TO LIGHT." (Emphasis Added).
73. A reasonable man might reasonably ask, "IF JUDGE ELLIOTT DID NOT DO WHAT THE CLAIMANT SAYS HE DID, THEN WHY HAS JUDGE ELLIOTT TRIED SO HARD, AND FOR SO LONG, TO DESTROY THE CLAIMANT'S CREDIBILITY, REPUTATION AND, IN GENERAL, HIS LIFE, BY GETTING PEOPLE LIKE DR. COCHRANE TO CALL IT ALL "A DELUSION", AND SWEEP CLAIMANT'S ILLEGAL ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE RUG? WHY IS JUDGE ELLIOTT PROTECTING HIS BROTHER, DR. CHARLES M. ELLIOTT, IF THERE IS NOTHING TO PROTECT HIM FROM?".
TO SUMMARIZE:
1. The pernicious frauds perpetrated by the Respondents, and each of them, have caused the Claimant enormous mental anguish and suffering. Claimant has been utterly humiliated before a community where he was known for years as an honest, tax-paying employer and otherwise model citizen candidate because of the Claimant's arrest and enduring public humiliation in the Romanian press. The callous indifference displayed by Respondent Holder could have easy been reversed in time to stop all the damage. He knew very well what was happening and was in a position to stop it all, but he simply did not care.
2. Claimant had planned on, and dreamed of, becoming a Romanian citizen and of living a happy life there with his wife. The actions of the Respondents, and each of them, have placed every aspect of those hopes and dreams in dire jeopardy. Even if the fraudulent case against the Claimant were to be resolved today, the damage is already great and can only be addressed in terms of very significant money damages, since none of the Respondents is in a position to confer Romanian citizenship on the Claimant and, while some of the Respondents may have the authority to re-open the murder investigation into the death of Suzy Drewery Elliott, none of the Respondents either (1) the power to bring Suzy Drewery Elliott back to life, or (2) have the power to expunge the humiliating images of Claimant's arrest and his various transports in shackles from the Claimant's mind or from the public's mind, either in the United States or in Romania.
3. Finally, it is fair to say that, if the Respondents, and each of them, had not done any of the intentionally damaging things that they are accused of doing here, the Claimant would still be in Romania, with his wife, and would be busy making a lot of money in the fertilizer manufacturing business, instead of seeing his company go bankrupt because of his false arrest. He would also have not spent a fortune on lawyers in Romania and would have had his many serious medical and dental issues and physical injuries and complications which resulted from all this imprisonment avoided and/or resolved long ago, before they became such far more serious matters. Each of the listed Respondents is, to one degree or another, to blame for all of these damages.
CAUSES OF ACTION:
Since Claimant is required as a matter of law to summarize the Constitutional violations and other torts against him, caused either directly or proximately by the Respondents, Claimant makes an effort here to list them:
COUNT 1: Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution makes the 2007 USA-Romania Treaty of Extradition the "supreme law of the land". Because the false statements of Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts caused the State Department and other federal officials to arrest Claimant in a foreign land and emboldened Respondent Peters to kidnap him in violation of other United States laws, Respondents Holder, Bulwinkle, Roberts, and Peters violated the Claimant's protections under the terms of the Treaty, and the enabling statutes of same, in the United States Code, as amended;
COUNT 2: Because there exists no felony conviction against the Claimant in ANY Court in his full, true, correct, and legal name, Respondents Bulwinkle and Peters have stolen the firearms of the Claimant without cause and have, thereby denied him the right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution;
COUNT 3: Because Respondents Bulwinkle and Peters conducted a fraudulent second (and possibly third) search of the Claimant's home, they violated the Claimant's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, especially when they took the Claimant's computer (containing irreplaceable data) and his guns, which were not even listed on the warrant presented when they took them on the 16th of April, 2005. These violations and each of them violated Claimant's rights under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution;
COUNT 4: Because Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts falsely swore that "Thomas Lowell Ketchum" was the person who allegedly did all the things they state in the indictment found in March of 2006, they generated a defective Grand Jury Indictment because it was for a dead man and not the Claimant. When they further swore that the indictment applied to the Claimant, they caused the Claimant to be "held to answer" for something other than a Grand Jury Indictment in his own name. In doing so, Respondents Bulwinkle and Roberts violated the Claimant's rights to due process and to be "held to answer" only to a Grand Jury Indictment, as specified in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (In layman terms, Claimant's false arrest and false imprisonment claims arise under this count);
COUNT 5: By their perjured affidavits in a fraudulent extradition package submitted to the government of Romania, Respondents Holder, Bulwinkle and Roberts caused an unlawful arrest and imprisonment in Romania in violation of the laws of the United States and did so with the effect of denying a "speedy trial" under any circumstances to the Claimant in violation of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution;
COUNT 6: Because of their perjured affidavits in the fraudulent extradition package and their perjured presentations at an initial hearing in the United States, Respondents Holder, Bulwinkle and Roberts caused the Claimant to be unreasonably denied bail, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.
COUNT 7: Because they abused their positions of trust within both the Mental Health Community, the "circle of 12" CJA appointed "public defenders" in the Northern District of Mississippi, and/or elsewhere, and within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, corruptly, and in a conspiracy with the other Respondents, and each of them, to do harm to Claimant in each of the above six (6) counts, Respondents McCoy, Levidiotis, Rattan, and Cochrane are just as guilty and responsible for all of the above counts as if he had actually been there and done them all, directly, and alone. Accordingly, the above-listed Respondents, by and through their conspiracy with the other Respondents, and each of them, has violated Claimant's rights under Amendments 2,4,5,6, and 8 and Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREFORE, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Claimant, THOMAS LOWELL KETCHUM, JR., prays for Judgement against all of the listed Defendants, and each of them, and requests the following relief:
1. Actual damages. For the wanton and shameless violations of civil rights and deprivations of liberty in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, which resulted in bankruptcy, physical injury, enormous legal, medical, and dental expenses and other actual costs, Claimant demands $2,000,000.00 (TWO MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS) from the United States for the tortious acts of the it's Respondent Officers listed, acting in their official capacities;
2. Compensatory damages. For wanton and shameless infliction of personal humiliation, physical injury, mental anguish and for holding both the Plaintiff and his family up to public shame, ridicule, and loss of the enjoyment of life for a period, Claimant demands $3,000,000.00 (THREE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS) from the United States for the tortious acts of the Respondent Officers listed, acting in their official capacities;
3. FOR A TOTAL MONETARY DEMAND OF $5,000,000.00 (FIVE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS).
CLAIMANT FURTHER DEMANDS AND CLAIMS ADDITIONAL, AND NON-MONETARY, RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Respondents Bulwinkle and Holder shall be ordered to re-open the murder investigation, on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, into the wrongful death of the late Suzy Drewery Elliott of Ripley, Mississippi, and for "obstruction of justice" counts, relating to the aforementioned incident;
2. That Respondents Holder, Bulwinkle, Peters, and Roberts, Rattan, and Cochrane shall ensure that all criminal records, whether Federal, State, or otherwise, including, but not limited to, NCIC files, BOP files, Marshals Service files, FBI files, "watch lists", "no fly lists", "infraguard lists", and every other form of official slander and/or adverse record of any kind and character that has been applied to the Plaintiff shall be fully and completely expunged;
3. That the Respondents, and each of them, shall be ordered, to apologize to Kelly Drewery for their part in delaying the initiation of a Federal investigation into, and prosecution relating to, his daughter's death;
4. That Respondents McCoy and Levidiotis shall be barred and otherwise prohibited from any and all future appointments under the Criminal Justice Act.
5. That Respondents Cochrane and Rattan be terminated from employment with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and barred from any future appointment to Federal Service of any kind or character.
6. That the Claimant's claim for Social Security Disability Benefits be reinstated, retroactively, to April, 2009, and that back-benefits and all future benefits shall be paid at the highest level allowed by law, for the life of the Claimant, without further requirement of physical or mental examination and that Claimant's OPM Disability Benefit Claim shall remain active and paid for the life of the Claimant.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_________________________________
THOMAS LOWELL KETCHUM, JR, PRO SE
