An arrest warrant against the secretary of the Education deparment, Julia Keleher, it was left without effect today after an agreement was reached with the agency to produce required documents in a case that is broadcast in the Federal Court.
So he clarified The new day the spokesperson of the Federal bailiffs In Puerto Rico, Pedro Fortier.
"Yes, there was an arrest warrant, but it was canceled when an agreement was reached with your work team (from Keleher) to deliver the documents that are being requested."Said Fortier, clarifying his previous assertion that the order was only for issuing documents.
Then, the Department of Education confirmed in a press release the version of the arrest warrant that was left without effect against Keleher.
"During the afternoon of today, an arrest warrant was issued against the Secretary of Education. The same was left without effect after the Department of Education notified that it works to produce the information required as part of a case before the Federal Court of which the Department is not a party, "the agency said.
"The requested information corresponds to the years 2011 to 2013. The Department of Education (DE) has been in constant communication with the lawyers and is attending the request"He added. "The facts precede the responsibility of the secretary Julia Keleher"
According to Fortier, the federal sheriffs received information that the officer is in California, but her work team promised to deliver the documents.
The officer said he did not have the information regarding the deadline the agency had to deliver the requested documents.
This media learned that the arrest warrant has no effect, it has to do with the request for documents in the case of Rocket Learning, a tutoring company processed at the federal level for illegal billings.
In September 2015 Rocket Learning and 31 of its employees, among teachers and managers, were accused by the federal authorities of a scheme of fraud for allegedly securing funds from Title I for unpaid tutoring services.
"The only thing I can say is that the trial was scheduled for January 14, 2020," said Rocket Learning's lawyer. Juan Ramón Acevedo Cruz, to The new day.
Addressing the information requirements of the agency, he refused to give statements. "I have nothing to say about that," he replied.
Motions and orders related to the request for information are restricted from public access.
According to the case file, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, federal judge Jay Garcia Gregory approved a defense request that the company had submitted on February 6.
Like the order, the request is sealed, but the document that asks to keep it restricted indicates that they are "issues of the right to prepare a defense," which is consistent with the statement in the DE's communiqué, that it is about documents from the year 2011 to 2013.
According to El Nuevo Día sources, for months Rocket Learning has requested the referred documents, but the DE had not complied with the requests made through the same federal court.
In fact, a motion by the company dated July 19, 2018 asks that a petition made to the judge be kept restricted.
"In sum, the defendant seeks information that may be essential for the defendant's defense in the event of a future trial," the motion indicates.
The judge approved the petition in October, when he also issued a subpoena, but on February 6 Rocket Learning returned to the judge with a sealed motion, whose public explanation for keeping it sealed again refers to the defendant's right to defend himself.
A grand jury accused Rocket Learning and the other defendants of appropriating $ 954,297 of Title I funds. Federal Department of Education, in what the authorities called the first phase of the operation "Bad grades" or "Bad notes".
When announcing the accusation at that time, the head of the Federal prosecution, Rosa Emilia Rodríguez, explained that the 26 charges were for postal fraud for payments sent through the Postal Service of the United States of 26 invoices issued between 2011 and 2013 that supposedly contained fraudulent information.
There are another 45 charges for aggravated identity theft, for falsifying the name and signature of students to create necessary records to pretend that they received tutoring when, according to the prosecution, they did not actually receive the services.
The judicial case has been active since 2015, as reflected in the judicial electronic file.