Charges against Tramel dropped

Charges of cheating and making false claims of an academic degree have been dropped against former Sneads City Manager Jerry Tramel.
Hired by the city in November 2005, Tramel was fired in February 2007.
Firing him “without cause” as his employment agreement allowed the city to do, the city council did so amid questions about his Ph.D. from Canterbury University in the town or county of Cheshire in the United Kingdom.
Allegations were made that the institution was essentially a “diploma mill,” in which various degrees are bestowed at varying prices and without class attendance and exams being taken
Tramel was subsequently charged with criminal offenses.
Tramel, in a written statement, said he felt “exonerated in (the) false degree claims case.” But assistant state attorney Greg Wilson said he thinks Tramel’s “claims of being ‘exonerated’ are overblown.”
Tramel called the dismissals a “stunning victory (which) took just 27 minutes during which every facet of the state’s case ... collapsed.” Tramel says the job he lost didn’t even require a degree, although he continues to maintain he does possess the degree he claimed.  He went on to say that he had performed his duties “in an exemplary fashion.”
Assistant State Attorney Greg Wilson, who inherited the case long after it was filed, explained why he believes the charge of cheating was dismissed.
The statutory definition of cheating is a broad one, and requires that the charging attorney specify the particulars that apply.
When the charge against Tramel was first leveled, the full statutory definition of cheating was simply pulled from computer software which stores all Florida statues. The charging attorney is then expected to select the offense variables that apply to the particular case and insert them. This clean-up wasn’t done, Wilson said.
Tramel’s attorney had the option of asking the state to either provide a “statement of particulars,” or file a motion to dismiss the charge for vagueness. Tramel’s lawyer opted to ask for the dismissal, and prevailed.
The court concluded that the state did not properly articulate its justification for the cheating charge.
Wilson said he also felt that he was barred from prosecuting on the cheating charge for another reason. According to him, there was an issue of double jeopardy, because the general statute for cheating essentially mirrors the specific statute cited in the other count.
“When there is a specific statute, it takes precedence and bars prosecution on the general statute for the same criminal action,” Wilson explained, “So, based on that premise, Judge (Bill) Wright concurred and count II (cheating) was dismissed.”
The prosecutor’s office was also facing time constraints.
“Additionally, there would have been an issue with amending the information to cure the grammatical defect (in the cheating charge). due to the time frame in which the defendant was charged and the case actually proceeding to trial,” Wilson said. “At the time of the hearing, it was nearly two years old, mainly because the defendant kept changing attorneys and seeking continuances, as well as the administrative change at the State Attorney’s Office.”
As for the count that accused Tramel of making false claims of an academic degree, the court file provides some clues as to why that charge was dropped.
In the dismissal, the court concluded that none of Tramel’s actions constituted a violation of the law cited in the material presented as the reason for the charge.
In the court file, a letter from Canterbury University states that, while it is not an institution credited by the U.S. Department of Education, it does indeed exist.
Such accreditation is voluntary, the school’s representative pointed out, and is not necessary for the existence of the school.
The institution confirmed that Tramel does possess the degrees he claims to have from the university.
Further, the representative wrote, as a foreign school, it could not obtain U.S. accreditation even if it wished to do so.
Wilson explained why he believes the charge related to Tramel’s claim of an academic degree was dropped.
“If Mr. Tramel had said that he held a Ph.D. or B.Sc. from FSU, and he in fact did not, then he could be charged. But that is not what he did. Mr. Tramel claimed to hold a degree from Canterbury University, which is an online ‘diploma mill,’” Wilson said. “Mr. Tramel does in fact have the paperwork from this ‘diploma mill’ and is allowed to say he has it. .., The fact remains that his claim to have a Ph.D, although technically true, is purposely meant to deceive people into believing that it was a degree earned through a studious education which imparted knowledge on the recipient, in contrast to a title which was actually purchased.”
Tramel defends his degree and its worth.
“Many people do not understand accreditation,” he explained. “They think it is compulsory, when in fact it is voluntary. They think it is a kind of warranty of degree quality when actually it is not. Its function is to allow access to federal tax dollars. Institutions that wish to have Title IV federal funding have their academic freedom restricted to what the federal government dictates,” Tramel wrote. “I believe that access to academic programs that are independent of government finance and interference is an essential factor in a free society.”
He also asserts that the secretary of a state agency has a similar degree, and was promoted by the governor rather than prosecuted by the state.
Tramel wrote at length about various court cases in which the accreditation issue has been tested. He pointed to case law concerning the statute under which he was charged, saying it had been previously struck down as an “unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights.”
Wilson said the statute itself is not unconstitutional, but acknowledged that the way the state was trying to use it might be considered so.
“Mr. Tramel’s attorney was arguing that the entire statute was unconstitutional because a federal court in south Florida had ruled that way in a civil case ... that case is not binding on the First District Court of Appeals,”  Wilson said.
Tramel had several other things to say in his statement.
“I lost my job over this,” he wrote. “But it is worthy of note that nobody involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case remains in the employ of the State Attorney’s Office. I have been advised I can expect substantial compensation for being put through this terrible ordeal, which my wife and I have endured to clear my own name, and to make a stand for academic freedom for every citizen of this great state and this great country.”