And this case ...
Veteran accused of passport fraud freed days ahead of trial
By Greg Botelho
7/8/11
A Navy veteran was freed from a federal detention center Friday, giving him four days of freedom before the start of his trial for allegedly lying on his passport application.
Former Petty Officer 2nd Class Elisha Leo Dawkins has been behind bars since April, having been detained nine days after returning from a stint in Cuba working as a military photographer.
He could get 10 years in prison if convicted of lying five years ago on a passport application, as federal prosecutors contend. But his attorney, Clark Mervis, has told CNN that his client’s actions were understandable and innocent.
Facebook
A hearing was held in a federal court Friday, at which the government agreed to reduce Dawkins’ bond to effectively nothing and paved the way for his release, said Annette Castillo of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami.
The government went along with a bond reduction after the Department of Homeland Security lifted an immigration detainer against Dawkins, Castillo explained by e-mail.
The grand jury indictment claims that Dawkins “did knowingly and willfully make a false statement” on an April 2006 passport application completed in Miami-Dade County. Specifically, Dawkins said that he had never before requested a U.S. passport, “when in truth ... and as the defendant ... knew, he had previously applied,” according to the indictment.
“Flash” Gordon Schwartz, a former Navy pilot, said that his friend Dawkins started filling out a passport application in 2004 but didn’t finish it. When he filled out another application two years later, Dawkins checked “no” next to the question about whether he’d completed an application previously — assuming that was the right answer, since his previous attempt wasn’t complete.
He got the passport. But five years later, in March, a warrant was issued for Dawkins’ arrest — at the same time he was at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, working as a military photographer, according to Schwartz. He returned to the United States on April 10, and was detained nine days later, said Dianne Rinehardt, a veteran who met him while both were in nursing school.
Schwartz, who is a Jacksonville accountant and also has Dawkins’ power of attorney, said Friday that his friend is happy to be free and is looking forward to his day in court.
“You have a dedicated young man, who is dedicated to the United States,” said Schwartz, noting he talked with his friend after his release. “He just wants to clear his name.”
Dawkins’ determination is so firm, according to his friend who is also his power of attorney, that he turned down an offer from the U.S. Attorney’s office to drop the charges once he completed a supervised pretrial diversion program.
Schwartz said that he plans to testify on his friend’s behalf as a character witness, as will some of Dawkins’ former “direct supervisors in the military.”
In recent weeks, Dawkins’ case has gained national attention with friends, politicians, past colleagues and strangers among the hundreds supporting a man who joined the U.S. Army upon graduating from high school. He served a tour in Iraq, and then joined the Navy in part so he could attend nursing school and re-enlist, Schwartz said.
A document, provided to CNN by Schwartz as authorized by U.S. Navy Vice Adm. M.E. Ferguson III, indicates that Dawkins had secret clearance while at Guantanamo. In an evaluation report, one superior lauds Dawkins as “a team player ... with a strong work ethic and desire to learn” and recommends him for promotion.
Considering “his previous attempt wasnt complete” then wouldn’t that indicate that he hadn’t actually applied?
IE If I had an application to convert my PS-90 to a short-barreled rifle, but decided against it after reading all the instructions (and fingerprinting required) but never sent it in (that is actually applying) then could that be used against me?
In short this sounds like it could be a good case for 18USC242 (deprivation of rights under color of law)... some government agency being the actor purporting to deprive him of his rights (as I understand that is a felony; ergo his future voting and firearms possessions are at stake).