Opinion ID: 149697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Struckman's Departure from Panama

Text: After Struckman went to Panama, U.S. government officials developed a plan for his return. Timothy O'Brien, at that time the regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Panama City, Panama, was the central person involved in the efforts to bring Struckman back to the United States for trial. In a 2004 e-mail to a Department of Justice (DOJ) trial attorney, O'Brien summed up the plan that had been developed: What we're hoping to do is find [Struckman] and have him deported vice [sic] going the provisional arrest warrant route. The reasons for this are simple  a [provisional arrest warrant] will mean that extradition proceedings begin.. . . [2] There's a Section of the [Code of Federal Regulations] . . . that allows the [U.S. government] to revoke a passport of an individual who is the subject of an outstanding Federal Felony arrest warrant  which Struckman has. We know he's got a U.S. [passport], and if we revoke it he's undocumented. Which means he's immediately deportable. There's also the possibility that the Panamanians can decide he's an undesirable and revoke his visa. . . . We just had a meeting with the Panamanian National Police . . ., and provided information that we hope will assist them in finding him. . . . On August 25, 2004, Panama's National Director for Immigration and Naturalization (the Director) issued two resolutions regarding Struckman's immigration status. One resolution denied Struckman's pending request to obtain an immigrant visa. It stated that the Panamanian government had considered a note it received from the U.S. District Court regarding the charge for conspiracy to defraud the United States. [3] The resolution gave Struckman thirty days to leave the country. The companion resolution stated that Struckman was wanted by the judicial authorities of the United States of America, in virtue of the fact that he ha[d] a warrant for his arrest pending for federal charges, being, as a result, a fugitive from United States justice. Relying on Panamanian Law No. 16 of June 30, 1960, Article 37, the resolution stated that [i]mmigration to the country of a foreign national is prohibited . . . [for] all persons with criminal records, such as fugitives and those sentenced or defendant in common crimes. The resolution ordered the arrest of Struckman for reasons of security and public order. On June 23, 2005, O'Brien sent an e-mail to IRS Special Agent Michael D. Hardaway about how quickly Struckman could be obtained from Panama. He noted that Struckman may be able to get a lawyer to slow things down (but that's a big reason we want to move quickly if we nab him  we don't want to give him that chance, especially with that much money available to him). In a letter later that summer to Panamanian officials, O'Brien stated that Struckman was charged with defrauding investors of over $50 million and that he was attempting to perpetrate the same kind of fraud scheme that he used with such success in the U.S. in Panama. O'Brien had no factual basis for making this statement. Shortly before Struckman was arrested by Panamanian authorities, O'Brien discussed the plan for the expulsion of Struckman with a DOJ trial attorney via e-mail. He stated that [w]hat we have set up, and still in place, is a [passport] revocation letter to be served on Struckman whenever he gets arrested and that [w]e also have a deportation/expulsion letter from Panamanian Immigration ready to go. As to the delay, O'Brien noted that the plan had been in place for a while, it's just putting the habeas grabbus on [Struckman] that's holding up executing everything. On January 11, 2006, the Panamanian National Police contacted O'Brien to report that police officers had arrested a man who might be David Struckman. O'Brien responded that Struckman [had been] sentenced and at this moment is a fugitive of the federal authorities and is [awaiting] to serve his sentence. The statement was clearly not true; Struckman had not yet been tried. As planned, that same day, the U.S. Department of State revoked Struckman's passport and a Panamanian arrest order issued for Struckman's failure to maintain [] his legal documents in the national territory. Struckman's counsel in Panama immediately filed a habeas corpus lawsuit in Panamanian court. The following day, O'Brien sent a fax to Mark Odulio, a federal prosecutor involved in the Struckman case. He informed Odulio that [a] lawyer for Struckman came sniffing around police [headquarters] this morning, the race has begun[.][T]he P[anamanian] N[ational] P[olice] ha[ve] turned Struckman over to immigration, so they'll refer the lawyer to them some time today. One day later, the district court found, Struckman was deported from Panama. Panama's Supreme Court of Justice issued an opinion in Struckman's habeas case several months after Struckman was removed from the country. The opinion set forth information from the Director, including that Struckman's  deportation from the national territory [was] made effective on January 13, 2006. (Emphasis in original.) The Panamanian Court held that it could not pronounce regarding the legality of [Struckman's] arrest . . . because [Struckman was then] outside the jurisdiction of Panama, due to the fact that he was deported in compliance with a 2004 resolution providing for such measures.