Letter from John C. Prohaska II on the Settlement — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden (Dkt. 317)

Summary

John C. Prohaska II, who signs as Johnny Prohaska, writes To Whom it May Concern about U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, Document 317, filed 07/23/24. The letter objects to the settlement's fairness, reasonableness, adequacy and substantial benefit, saying that fixing records, updating websites and creating PowerPoint presentations give no benefit to Navy ROTC midshipmen. It quotes Section C par 17 on removing records, Section C par 18 on reenlistment codes and Section E par 37 on the release of claims. The letter says the writer will not release any claims until properly represented and asks that the Navy cancel the debt owed to the government.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 317 Filed 07/23/24 Page1of4 PagelD 8474

In reference to U.S. Navy SEALS 1-26 v. Biden, 4:22-cv-01236-O (N.D. Tex.)

7/16/24

John C. Prohaska II

To Whom it May Concern,

“US. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

j

CLERK, U.S. DABARICT COURT
uty

My name is Johnny Prohaska. | was a proud Scholarship Midshipman of the Navy ROTC unit at
the Georgia Institute of Technology when the COVID-19 shot was mandated for every member of the
United States Navy. | submitted a Religious Accommodation request, which was denied, and then was
subsequently coercively removed and separated from my Navy ROTC unit. During my period of
separation, | had to take out many loans (totaling $76,000.00) to pay for my schooling which was once
covered by the Scholarship | was previously on. Over a year after my separation, while | was still finishing
up my degree, | received notice that ! will be charged by the Navy in the amount of $28,000.00 for the
cost of my tuition and fees that my ROTC scholarship had covered. So now | am in over $100,000 of debt
that | had planned to avoid by being a part of NROTC and serving my country as an Officer once |
commissioned. Had the COVID-19 shot not been mandated, | would have commissioned in the Navy and
presently be an Officer in the fleet, not owing any of this money. | was removed from the Navy when |
did not want to be removed and now am being charged for said removal, which was not my decision. For
this class action case to have any semblance of “substantial benefit” to me or others in my situation, the
tuition and fee money that |! am being charged by the Navy should be wiped completely clean and the
private loans | had to take out because of this forced and coerced removal should be paid for in full by
the United States Navy. Thus, | hereby object to the fairness, reasonableness, adequacy, substantial
benefit, and best interest (Section C par 25) of this Settlement agreement (U.S. Navy SEALS 1-26 v. Biden,
4:22-cv-01236-0 (N.D. Tex.)). | will address the lack of fairness, reasonableness, adequacy, substantial

benefit, and best interest of this settlement in this letter.

First and foremost, | do NOT agree to the dismissal of this case (Section D par 34) because there
is no subclass of Navy ROTC Midshipman who submitted a Religious Accommodation request defined or
recognized in this class action, and this is the class that many others and | would fall into. | do not feel
properly represented in this case. This is not fair to myself or others that fall into this subclass since this
settlement does not provide substantial benefit to this subclass of Midshipmen nor is in the
Midshipmen’s best interest . This settlement, if anything, is in the Navy’s best interest, not mine. Simply
fixing records, updating websites, and creating PowerPoint presentations is of zero substantial benefit to
me or anyone else in this subclass. Thus these solutions are not reasonable given the situation at hand as
it pertains to this subclass of Midshipmen. | also believe that they are not reasonable disciplinary
measures as it pertains to the listed classes and subclasses in the settlement, not just the unlisted
Midshipmen (creating a PowerPoint presentation does not solve the deeper problem that is underlying
the decision making of higher ups in the Navy). Furthermore, this settlement is NOT adequate for the
damages and harm done to be by the United States Navy throughout this entire process. As mentioned
earlier, there is no substantial benefit that | would receive for these damages due to this settlement.
Section C par 17 states that the Navy will “permanently remove records indicating administrative
separation processing or proceedings, formal counseling, and non-judicial punishment actions taken
against the class members”. While this may be beneficial to some (SEALS, Spec Ops, etc.) for members of
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 317 Filed 07/23/24 Page 2of4 PagelD 8475

the Midshipmen subclass (again, undefined and unrecognized in this case) this does nothing to help
against the recoupment of funds that the Navy is seeking. It would also remove any record of
wrongdoing against us and removes the Navy of their liability for the harm done to its sailors. In Section
C par 18 it is stated that the Navy will ensure that all members will receive a reenlistment code and be
able to rejoin without any past of misconduct. Again, this does nothing for me. | do not seek to re-enlist
in the Navy, | am seeking recompense for the monetary and mental harm that the Navy has done to me
throughout this process. This is not to say there was a lack of conviction behind joining the Navy, | was
willing and ready but then forcibly put into this situation because of an unconstitutional mandate and
my religious beliefs.

Section E par 37 states that “Plaintiffs, the members of the Class defined above, and their heirs,
administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and each of them hereby release,
waive, acquit, and forever discharge the United States, Defendants, any department, agency or
establishment of the United States, and their present or former officials, employees, successors, and
agents, in their official and individual capacities, from, and are hereby forever barred and precluded from
prosecuting, any and all claims, causes of action, and/or requests for relief that would be barred by the
doctrine of res judicata were final judgment on the merits entered on all claims asserted in the Civil
Action, including claims to attorneys’ fees, costs, and other litigation expenses or claims for attorneys’
fees, costs, and other litigation expenses that have been, or could have been, made as a result of the
Civil Action”. | object to this statement as well because | do not believe this settlement even remotely
adequately begins to cover the damages done to me. | would like those who are responsible for this
situation to be held accountable and make things right in the form of nullifying the “debt” | owe to the
government as well as paying for the additional loans that were required to finish my schooling. | will
NOT release, waive, acquit, or forever discharge the individuals and groups involved until | am properly
and fairly represented and restituted.

Another reason for my objection to this settlement is because of a statement made in the
“NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING TO APPROVE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden”. On page 3, it states that “If approved, the Settlement will
release the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Navy from liability for all
claims that relate to the Department of Defense’s prior requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19
as well as all claims related to the U.S. Navy’s religious accommodation request procedures. This release
includes all claims for non-monetary relief (including declaratory and injunctive relief) and may preclude
certain non-individualized claims for money damages.” | do not wish the U.S. Government, DOD, or U.S.
Navy to be free of any liability as it pertains to my specific case and subclass, which again are not defined
or recognized throughout this entire class action and settlement. | want them to be held responsible for
their actions done to me and this settlement does not allow that to happen.

Overall, | object to this class action settlement because of it’s lack of fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy as well as lack of definition and recognition of the class that | identify with in this scenario.
The proposed settlement is in the best interest of the United States Navy and its constituents, not in my
best interest (they are washing their hands of the situation by trying to get all liability removed). The
proposed settlement is also of zero benefit to myself as all it would do is clear my record of any
disciplinary actions taken against me, which | do not want to happen as | would like it to stand as proof
and a paper trail of the wrongdoings and coercion against me. This settlement is not fair because it does
not properly recognize and define all the parties involved. This settlement is not reasonable as the Navy
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 317 Filed 07/23/24 Page 3of4 PagelD 8476

really is not having to do anything on their end except for clear a few records and create some language
and guidance around religious accommodations. The parties involved must be held directly responsible
for their actions and a more serious outcome is necessary to prevent such heinous acts from happening
again. This settlement is not adequate as it does not provide me any relief from the monetary pressures
that the government has unjustly placed upon myself and my family. As a matter of fact, nothing in this
settlement benefits me at all, it is only detrimental to my situation and beliefs.

Very Respectfully,
Johnny Prohaska
(706)-993-7949
21-cv-01236-O Document 317 Filed 07/23/24 Page4of4 PagelD 8477

Case 4


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.317.0.pdf

Size

622,024 bytes

SHA-256

9631e09017404d1057dd0e741ef244b392f86d18cae5edabf964a9c0d0853247

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.317.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.