Tag: louisiana

Democrat Judge Kicked Out of Office After Getting Caught in Series of Outrageous Lies Including About Her Military Service

A judge in Louisiana lost her seat on the bench after making up a series of massive lies during her 2020 election campaign.

As The Daily Mail reported, Baton Rouge Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts was removed from her position by the Louisiana Supreme Court in a 4-3 vote. She is the first judge to be removed from office in the Pelican State in 16 years.

Foxworth-Roberts is a Democrat who was elected in 2020 by only 27 votes.

One Louisiana Supreme Court judge slammed Foxworth-Roberts’ “tortured explanations and excuses” while she was under investigation.

“Rather than take responsibility for her conduct, (Foxworth-Roberts) has persisted with tortured explanations and excuses,’ Justice Jay McCallum wrote. “Therefore, her conduct has done little, if anything, to show remorse or contrition.”

The biggest lie she uttered centered around her time in uniform. She claimed in a campaign ad to have served in combat in Desert Storm and has risen to the rank of Army Captain.

But there’s just one problem: Foxworth-Roberts not only never saw combat, but she was never deployed overseas at all.

The Mail reported:

In ads she ran while campaigning for the bench, Foxworth-Roberts wore military attire and claimed to have risen to the rank of Army Captain, and in one ad she said she was ‘no stranger to being on the front lines during the call of duty.’

But during the investigation into her claims, Foxworth-Roberts initially would not approve the release of her military records, and when they were eventually released, it was found that she never served in combat, and had never been deployed overseas.

Despite being found to have fabricated her combat record, Foxworth-Roberts reportedly argued that she played a role in Operation Desert Storm because she worked with veterans of the war at the Walter Reed Medical Center.

In addition to lying about her military service, Foxworth-Roberts submitted an insurance claim that stated $40,000 had been stolen from her after someone supposedly broke into her car back in 2020.

The crime actually happened outside her home, and the goods she reported stolen from the police were different than the ones reported to the insurance company.

Keep reading

Louisiana Woman Gets Over 4 Years in Federal Prison for $267K Pandemic Fraud

Reha Janee Arvie, age 35, of Westwego, LA, was sentenced for Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud,  Acting United States Attorney Michael M. Simpson announced. 

Court documents say that around July 2020, Arvie defrauded, and attempted to defraud various state offices of Unemployment Insurance through the submission of about 100 fraudulent UI applications. Arvie recruited friends and family, via Facebook, to file these fraudulent UI applications. 

Additionally, Arvie filed fraudulent UI applications for herself and others, in various states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Utah, Texas, and the territory of Guam. Arvie charged those for whom she filed fraudulent UI claims fees, ranging from $1,200.00 to $1,500.00. For example, Arvie obtained $267,612.00 in UI benefits from California’s Employment Development Department. Moreover, during the investigation, Arvie lied to federal agents during an interview.

United States District Judge Sarah S. Vance sentenced Arvie to 52 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release and payment of a $100 mandatory special assessment fee.   

On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. 

Keep reading

Missing 13-Year-Old Louisiana Girl Found Hidden in Box in Pittsburgh Basement, Suspects Arrested for Kidnapping, Trafficking, and Sexual Assault After Snapchat Grooming

A 13-year-old girl from East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, who went missing in October, has been recovered after being found hidden in a box covered by a sheet in the basement of a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, home.

The teen was last seen at the Greyhound bus station in Baton Rouge after traveling from Columbus, Georgia.

Authorities traced her through online activity, discovering she had been in contact with 26-year-old Ki-Shawn Crumity via Snapchat.

Crumity allegedly lured her by promising to help her get adopted by a trusted adult.

The girl was transported from Baton Rouge to Georgia by 62-year-old Ronald Smith of New Orleans and another man, then placed on a bus to Pittsburgh via Washington, D.C.

At the D.C. bus station, she met a woman who offered assistance, and the group proceeded to Pittsburgh, where the teen stayed in the basement with Crumity and the woman.

According to investigators, Crumity provided the girl with edibles and alcohol and sexually assaulted her at least once or twice a day during the week she was there. He reportedly admitted to knowing she was a runaway and that his actions would get him in trouble.

On Friday, the FBI executed a search warrant with a SWAT team at the Davis Avenue home, discovering the girl in the basement box.

The Independent reports, “The girl later told authorities that being at the hospital after her rescue was ‘the safest she ever felt,’ according to the complaint.”

Crumity was arrested on-site and faces charges including trafficking in individuals, statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and selling or furnishing alcohol to a minor. He is being held without bond at Allegheny County Jail.

Smith was arrested in Columbus, Georgia, on charges of simple kidnapping and contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile.

Authorities indicated that additional arrests and charges are pending.

Keep reading

Google Adds Age Check Tech as Texas, Utah, and Louisiana Enforce Digital ID Laws

Google is preparing for a new era of digital age checks as state-level rules in Texas, Utah, and Louisiana begin to reshape how app stores operate.

To get ahead of these requirements, the company has introduced the Play Signals API in beta, a system built to help developers adapt to laws that will soon mandate age-based controls.

Starting in early 2026, each of the three states will enforce its own version of the App Store Accountability Act.

Texas’s law takes effect first, followed by Utah and Louisiana a few months later. Each statute requires app marketplaces to confirm the age range of their users through “commercially reasonable” verification methods.

Developers will be responsible for interpreting those signals and tailoring their apps accordingly. In some regions, they will also have to inform Google Play if a product update could require new parental consent.

For testing purposes, the company is providing a FakeAgeSignalsManager so that developers can simulate data before the laws officially apply.

Google’s rollout of its new Play Signals API is part of a broader shift toward a verified internet, one where digital access is increasingly tied to proof of identity.

The company’s beta API is being framed as a neutral compliance tool, but its function sets the stage for a more monitored web.

While the stated purpose is child safety and regulatory compliance, the architecture being built threatens to erode one of the internet’s core principles, pseudonymity.

The data points that determine whether someone is over 13 or over 18 can easily evolve into a persistent set of identifiers, linking activity across apps, accounts, and even devices. Once these signals are standardized, nothing prevents them from being combined with advertising, analytics, or behavioral tracking systems.

The result could be a world where age verification quietly becomes identity verification, and where “commercially reasonable” checks amount to permanent user profiling.

Keep reading

Massive SCOTUS Case Could Guarantee House Control For GOP

The Supreme Court took a second look at a case that could result in handing the Republican Party guaranteed control of the House of Representatives last week, and initial reports suggest a major ruling is on the horizon. If the highest court in the land strikes down Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, the GOP’s hold over the House could become insurmountable.

Reports say that if Section 2 is removed, which has been interpreted previously as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts, the Republican Party could toss out a dozen Democratic-held districts in the South.

It all started when a group of voters challenged a 2024 congressional map by claiming that it pushes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. This means the map sorts voters based on their race, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The court heard two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, with conservative justices signaling they are most likely going to undermine a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, though they might not strike it down completely.

“Wednesday’s oral argument was the latest chapter in a dispute that dates back to 2022, when Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. Roughly one-third of the state’s population is Black, but the 2022 map had only one majority-Black district out of the six districts allotted to the state. That prompted a group of Black voters to go to federal court, where they argued that the 2022 map violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bars discrimination in voting practices,” SCOTUS Blog reported.

U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2. She then forbade the state from using this particular map in future elections and ordered the state to create a new map featuring two majority-Black districts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit supported that ruling. It then gave the state until January 15, 2024, to produce a new map; otherwise, the lower court would develop a plan for the 2024 elections.

Louisiana then created a new map that created a second majority-Black district. Complaints came forward from a group of voters who referred to themselves as “non-African American.” A three-judge federal district court ruled that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, as it sorted voters based on race. The court banned the state from using the map in future elections.

“In May 2024, the Supreme Court put the three-judge district court’s ruling on hold, which allowed the state to move forward with using the new map in the 2024 elections. Voters in the 6th District, the new majority-Black district, elected Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s, to represent them,” SCOTUS Blog writes.

Louisiana and the Black voters then appealed to the Supreme Court, which listened to oral arguments for the first time since spring. The state stated that once the lower courts determined the 2022 map likely violated the VRA, it directed the state to redraw a map with a second majority-Black district. State Republicans’ primary goal was to provide protection for the state’s GOP incumbents, such as Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who is an active member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Keep reading

Here Are 6 Key Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Landmark Race-Based Redistricting Case

UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a pair of high stakes redistricting cases that could significantly reshape American electoral politics.

Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matter focuses on a dispute over the use of race in Louisiana’s congressional map. While the state’s initial map included a single black-majority district, a lawsuit and subsequent legal battle led lawmakers to redraw the map to include a second black-majority district, producing another legal battle that centered on the state’s allegedly unlawful use of race when creating the new map.

During oral arguments, the justices probed parties on the facts of the respective cases and the longstanding judicial conflict over provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2) and 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Here are some of the biggest moments from the hearing.

Jackson Said What About the Disabled?

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from making ill-advised statements, whether they be in interviews or opinions. So, it wasn’t surprising when the Biden appointee suggested race be considered by states in redistricting because black Americans are systemically “disabled” and don’t have legitimate access to the elections process.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said, effectively arguing that it doesn’t matter whether such discrimination is intentional or not.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

Thomas Asks a Simple (Yet Meaningful) Question

As the longest serving member of the current court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as a critical voice of reason in many matters that come before the highest bench in the land. One of the ways he does this is through simple, yet meaningful, questions to parties in oral arguments.

While questioning Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, Thomas asked “what role” the federal district court’s block on the state’s initial map “play[ed] in development of” the new map that included a second black-majority district. The state solicitor general disclosed that the court’s order is the “only reason” Louisiana drew a new map.

“Justice Thomas, [that court decision] is the only reason [this new map] exists,” Aguiñaga said. “We fought tooth and nail in the Robinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second majority-black district. As you know, under protest, we drew [the new map] because the threat was that the federal courts would do it if we didn’t.”

“We would never pass [the new map] in the first instance without Robinson, Justice Thomas,” he added.

[READ: In Race-Based Redistricting Battle, Louisiana Urges SCOTUS To Uphold America’s ‘Color Blind’ Constitution]

DOJ Official Silences Sotomayor

Arguing on the side of Louisiana, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan got into a testy exchange with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor over the Pelican State’s creation of a second-black majority district.

In debating the racial and political motivations behind the creation of maps like Louisiana’s, Mooppan noted the racial double standard that exists where if the block of voters in question were white, there wouldn’t be a debate about whether there should be an additional district tailored to their community.

“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None,” Mooppan said. “And so what is happening here is their argument is, because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”

Keep reading

“Black” voting districts are unconstitutional, unfair, and condescending

The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.

You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.

All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.

(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)

There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.

Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?

In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.

Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?

Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.

In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?

What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?

Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?

Keep reading

In Race-Based Redistricting Battle, Louisiana Urges SCOTUS To Uphold America’s ‘Color Blind’ Constitution

Is the use of race in the redistricting process unconstitutional?

That’s a key question the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering in a pair of high-profile cases set to be argued before the justices on Wednesday. Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matters provide the court with the opportunity to end longstanding conflicts between the Constitution and race-centric voting provisions that have plagued states and the redistricting process for decades.

We believe these cases are “good vehicle[s] for the Supreme Court to address some of these issues that have been percolating for a very long time,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told The Federalist.

As The Federalist previously reported, the origins of the dispute date back to spring 2022, when the Louisiana Legislature drafted a congressional map with a single black-majority district. This prompted a group of plaintiffs — represented by left-wing groups like the ACLU — to sue, alleging that the map “dilut[ed] black voting strength” and therefore violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Following an injunction barring the map’s implementation by a district court judge, continued litigation in the case ultimately resulted in the state redrawing the map to include a second black-majority district. This led to another lawsuit from a different group of plaintiffs, who claimed the state unlawfully prioritized race in the map’s creation and therefore violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. A three-judge panel on a separate district court agreed with these plaintiffs and blocked the new map’s implementation.

While the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case and was expected to issue a verdict during its 2024-2025 term, the justices announced on the final day of the session that it would be rehearing arguments in the case this fall. The court notably issued an order in early August instructing parties in the case to address the question of “[w]hether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.”

Keep reading

Winners Not Happy With Judgment in Lawsuit Against Under 21 Handgun Sales Ban

A U.S. District Court in Louisiana handed three Second Amendment advocacy groups and three individual plaintiffs what they said was an empty victory and a possibly unconstitutional order.

The plaintiffs intend to appeal the judgment.

Meanwhile, a constitutional lawyer and Second Amendment social media influencer said their concerns may be unfounded.

In November 2020, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, along with individuals Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, and Emily Naquin, sued the federal government over its prohibition on sales of handguns to those between 18 and 21.

In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana upheld the ban.

The plaintiffs appealed to a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the ban unconstitutional and sent the case back to the district court for a final judgment.

On Oct. 7, District Court Judge Robert R. Summerhays issued a narrow judgment limiting relief to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations on Nov. 6, 2020, and are located in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the states in the Fifth Circuit.

The judge also ruled that the organizations create a list of those members within 21 days.

The plaintiffs said that affected members of the named organizations would have been in their early teens at the time of the filing. Leaders of the plaintiff groups said they would refuse to disclose membership information.

Keep reading

‘Louisiana Lockup’ Detention Center Is Punishing Immigrants for the Same Crime Twice, New Lawsuit Says

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on Monday, accusing Louisiana’s new immigration detention center, “Louisiana Lockup,” and the Trump administration of indefinitely locking up immigrant detainees in the facility and punishing immigrants for the same crime twice, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Louisiana facility opened on September 3, using the blueprint forged by Florida’s Alligator Alcatraz. After Republican Gov. Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency in July to expedite repairs to a section of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana—a maximum-security prison notorious for violent and inhumane conditions—the state partnered with the Department of Homeland Security to add 416 immigrant detainee beds. 

“This facility is designed to hold the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” and is meant “to consolidate the most violent offenders into a single deportation and holding facility,” Landry said during a press conference on opening day. “Angola is the largest maximum-security prison in the country,” he continued, “with 18,000 acres bordered by the Mississippi River, swamps filled with alligators, and forests filled with bears.”

“If you don’t think that they belong somewhere like this,” Landry said, referring to the incoming immigrant detainees, “you got a problem.” 

But in the case of Oscar Amaya, a 34-year-old man who is currently detained at “Louisiana Lockup,” there may very well be a problem. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, argues that Amaya’s continued detention violates the Double Jeopardy Clause and is designed to punish him—again—for a prior conviction. 

Although immigration detention is a civil penalty, double jeopardy applies if the civil sanctions are applied punitively. As the complaint, reviewed by Reason, points out, the punitive nature of imprisonment in a place like Angola is no secret. Rather, both Landry and Trump administration officials seem to relish in the facility’s violent past. “This is not just a typical [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ICE detention facility that you will see elsewhere in the country,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem proclaimed during the facility’s opening. “This is a facility that’s notorious.…Angola Prison is legendary.”

Amaya fled Honduran gang life in 2005 and worked in the United States “without incident” until 2016, according to the complaint. That year, he was arrested and later “convicted of attempted aggravated assault, possession of a weapon (knife) for unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon (knife).” Amaya was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, but was released after two years with good time credits. 

Keep reading