Connect with us

Breaking News

EXCLUSIVE: Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department Caught Obstructing, Concealing Information About Defendants Beavers and James

Mississippi Law Enforcement Agency Engages in Pattern of Stonewalling, Evasion, and Potential Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

Published

on

FOIA Records obtained by Matthew Reardon

By Matthew Reardon
We the People News
Investigative Report


A We the People News investigation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of obstruction and concealment by the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department in Mississippi. Through a series of phone calls documented in September and October 2025, sheriff’s department personnel repeatedly refused to provide basic public information about defendants Beavers and James, engaged in evasive tactics, and demonstrated what appears to be a coordinated effort to prevent public access to information that should be readily available under Mississippi public records law.

The investigation reveals:

  • Systematic Refusal to Provide Information: Multiple calls met with stonewalling, excuses, and refusals to provide basic booking information
  • Contradictory Statements: Department personnel provided conflicting information about record availability and procedures
  • Suspicious Behavior: Evidence of coordination between staff members to obstruct information requests
  • Potential Legal Violations: Actions that may violate Mississippi Public Records Act and obstruction of justice statutes
  • Pattern of Retaliation: Targeting of journalist who has documented law enforcement misconduct

This report documents the complete timeline of obstruction, analyzes the legal implications, and exposes what appears to be a deliberate campaign to conceal information from public scrutiny.


PART I: THE INVESTIGATION BEGINS

Background: Why These Defendants Matter

The Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department holds information about two defendants—identified in this investigation as Beavers and James—whose cases have raised significant questions about law enforcement conduct, due process, and transparency in Mississippi’s criminal justice system.

When We the People News began investigating these cases, we encountered immediate resistance from the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department. What should have been a routine public records request turned into a months-long saga of obstruction, evasion, and what can only be described as deliberate concealment.

Under Mississippi law, public records are presumptively open to public inspection. The Mississippi Public Records Act (Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-1 et seq.) establishes that:

  1. Public records are open: All public records shall be open for inspection by any citizen
  2. Prompt response required: Agencies must respond to requests within a reasonable time
  3. Limited exceptions: Only specific, enumerated exceptions allow withholding
  4. Criminal penalties: Willful violation can result in criminal charges

Booking records, arrest information, and basic defendant data are quintessential public records. There is no legitimate basis for refusing to provide this information to journalists or citizens.

Yet that is exactly what the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department did.


PART II: THE PHONE CALLS – A TIMELINE OF OBSTRUCTION

September 22, 2025: The First Call – “Definitely Plotting and Planning”

Context: Initial attempt to obtain information about defendants Beavers and James.

What Happened: The first call to the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department set the tone for what would become a pattern of obstruction. When We the People News requested basic booking information about the defendants, the response was immediate resistance.

A female staff member—later identified in subsequent calls as “Karen”—provided evasive answers, claimed records were unavailable, and suggested calling back at a different time. The interaction was documented on video and later published on YouTube with the title: “EXCLUSIVE PHONE CALL with Sheriff’s Secretary for St Martin Parish Sheriffs Office 9-22-2025.”

Red Flags:

  • Immediate defensiveness when asked about defendants
  • Refusal to provide basic information that should be readily available
  • Suggestion to call back rather than accessing available records
  • Tone suggesting coordination with others in office

Analysis: The first call established that the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department was not going to cooperate with routine public records requests. The evasive responses and refusal to provide basic information suggested this was not mere incompetence but deliberate obstruction.

Follow-Up Call: “Karen at Lafayette County Sheriffs Department Calls Back”

Context: Department personnel initiated contact after initial request.

What Happened: In an unusual move, a staff member from the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department called back. This call, documented in a YouTube video titled “PT 2: KAREN AT LAFAYETTE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT CALLS BACK. DEFINITELY PLOTTING AND PLANNING,” revealed even more concerning behavior.

The callback was not to provide the requested information. Instead, it appeared designed to:

  1. Determine what information the journalist already possessed
  2. Gauge the scope of the investigation
  3. Potentially coordinate a response with other officials
  4. Further delay or obstruct the information request

Key Observations:

  • The callback itself was suspicious—why call back if not to provide information?
  • Questions seemed designed to extract information rather than provide it
  • Tone and content suggested coordination with others
  • No substantive information was provided despite the callback

The “Plotting and Planning” Evidence: The title of the video—”DEFINITELY PLOTTING AND PLANNING”—reflects the journalist’s assessment based on the content of the call. The behavior exhibited suggested:

  • Coordination: Staff member appeared to be consulting with others during the call
  • Strategic Evasion: Responses seemed calculated to avoid providing information while appearing cooperative
  • Information Gathering: Questions designed to determine what the journalist knew
  • Delay Tactics: Promises to “look into it” and “call back” without substantive action

The Pattern Emerges: Multiple Obstructions

Between September and October 2025, multiple attempts to obtain information about defendants Beavers and James met with similar obstruction:

Attempt 1: Told records are “not available right now”
Attempt 2: Directed to call a different number
Attempt 3: Told to submit written request (despite verbal requests being legally sufficient)
Attempt 4: Claims that “someone else” handles those records
Attempt 5: Simply refused to provide information without explanation

Each obstruction followed a similar pattern:

  1. Initial resistance
  2. Excuse or deflection
  3. Suggestion to try different method/time/person
  4. No substantive information provided
  5. No explanation for refusal

PART III: THE EVIDENCE OF COORDINATION

“Obstructionists” – The Facebook Documentation

On October 15, 2025, We the People News published a Facebook post titled “Obstructionists” that documented the pattern of obstruction by the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department. The post included:

  • Audio from phone calls with department personnel
  • Analysis of the evasive tactics employed
  • Documentation of the timeline of obstruction
  • Evidence suggesting coordination among staff members

Linkhttps://www.facebook.com/share/v/14ErXqgzada/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The Facebook post detailed how multiple staff members appeared to be working together to prevent access to public records. The coordination was evident in:

  1. Consistent Excuses: Different staff members provided similar excuses
  2. Referral Pattern: Each person referred to another person or department
  3. Timing: Callbacks and responses seemed coordinated
  4. Information Control: No one would provide information, but all knew to deflect

The Smoking Gun: Evidence of Deliberate Concealment

The most damning evidence came from analyzing the pattern of responses across multiple calls:

What They Said vs. What the Law Requires:Lafayette County ClaimsMississippi Law Reality”Records not available”Booking records are public and must be maintained”Call back later”Agencies must respond within reasonable time”Submit written request”Verbal requests are legally sufficient”Someone else handles that”Agency is responsible regardless of internal procedures”Can’t provide that information”Public records presumptively open to inspection

Every excuse violated Mississippi public records law. Every deflection was legally improper. Every refusal was potentially criminal.


Potential Criminal Violations

Beyond civil violations of the Public Records Act, the conduct may constitute criminal offenses:

1. Obstruction of Justice (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-1)

  • Willfully obstructing administration of justice
  • Includes concealing evidence or information
  • Applies to public officials

Potential Application: Deliberate concealment of public records to obstruct investigation

2. Misconduct in Office (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-11-39)

  • Public officer willfully failing to perform duty
  • Includes refusal to provide public records
  • Misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances

Potential Application: Systematic refusal to comply with public records law

3. Conspiracy (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-1)

  • Agreement between two or more persons to commit unlawful act
  • Includes conspiracy to obstruct justice
  • Enhanced penalties for public officials

Potential Application: Coordination among staff to obstruct records access

Federal Implications

If the obstruction relates to federal investigations or civil rights violations, federal charges could apply:

18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Obstruction of Justice

  • Destroying, altering, or concealing records
  • With intent to obstruct investigation
  • Up to 20 years imprisonment

18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

  • Conspiracy to deprive citizens of constitutional rights
  • Includes First Amendment rights to access public information
  • Up to 10 years imprisonment

PART V: THE BROADER PATTERN – WHY THIS MATTERS

Not an Isolated Incident

The obstruction by Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department is not occurring in a vacuum. It is part of a broader pattern of law enforcement agencies in Mississippi and beyond targeting journalists who document misconduct.

Related Incidents:

  1. U.S. Marshals BOLO Alert: Federal surveillance of journalist for protected activities
  2. Lafayette Federal Courthouse Arrest: Arrest for peaceful protest about surveillance
  3. Federal Protective Order Motion: Attempt to silence journalism about government conduct
  4. Lafayette County Obstruction: State-level coordination to conceal information

Each incident involves:

  • Targeting of the same journalist
  • Obstruction of constitutionally protected activities
  • Coordination among law enforcement agencies
  • Retaliation for documenting misconduct

The Defendants: Beavers and James

While the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department has worked to conceal information about defendants Beavers and James, the public has a compelling interest in knowing:

Questions That Remain Unanswered:

  • What are the charges against Beavers and James?
  • When were they arrested and booked?
  • What is the status of their cases?
  • Are there any connections to other cases or investigations?
  • Why is the Sheriff’s Department so determined to conceal this information?

The very fact that the department is obstructing access to this information suggests there is something they don’t want the public to know.

Implications for Justice and Transparency

The Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department’s obstruction has serious implications:

1. Undermines Public Trust

  • Citizens cannot trust law enforcement that conceals information
  • Transparency is essential for accountability
  • Obstruction breeds suspicion and distrust

2. Threatens Press Freedom

  • Journalists cannot report on what they cannot access
  • Public records laws are meaningless if not enforced
  • Obstruction chills investigative journalism

3. Enables Misconduct

  • Concealment allows misconduct to continue
  • Lack of transparency prevents accountability
  • Pattern suggests something to hide

4. Violates Due Process

  • Defendants have right to public proceedings
  • Public has right to know about criminal justice system
  • Secrecy undermines legitimacy of process

PART VI: THE RESPONSE – WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Formal Complaints Filed

In response to the obstruction, We the People News has taken the following actions:

1. Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

  • Formal complaint under Mississippi Public Records Act
  • Request for investigation of violations
  • Demand for enforcement action

2. FBI Referral

  • Referral for potential federal civil rights violations
  • Documentation of obstruction pattern
  • Request for investigation of conspiracy

3. Mississippi State Auditor Notification

  • Report of potential misconduct in office
  • Request for audit of records management
  • Demand for accountability

4. Media Exposure

  • Publication of documented obstruction
  • Release of phone call recordings
  • Public pressure for transparency

Several legal remedies are available:

1. Mandamus Action

  • Court order compelling production of records
  • Available under Mississippi law
  • Can include attorney’s fees

2. Civil Rights Lawsuit

  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for First Amendment violations
  • Damages for obstruction of press freedom
  • Injunctive relief requiring compliance

3. Criminal Referral

  • Request for prosecution of violations
  • State and federal charges possible
  • Public officials not immune from criminal liability

Public Pressure Campaign

Transparency requires public engagement:

What You Can Do:

  1. Contact Lafayette County Officials
    • Sheriff’s Department: [Contact Info]
    • Board of Supervisors: [Contact Info]
    • Demand transparency and accountability
  2. Contact State Officials
  3. Share This Story
    • Social media: #LafayetteCountyObstruction #MississippiTransparency
    • Email to friends and family
    • Post in community groups
  4. Support Investigative Journalism
    • Subscribe to We the People News
    • Share our reporting
    • Donate to support continued investigation

PART VII: THE EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTED PROOF

Video Documentation

The following videos document the obstruction:

1. “EXCLUSIVE PHONE CALL with Sheriff’s Secretary for St Martin Parish Sheriffs Office 9-22-2025”

2. “PT 2: KAREN AT LAFAYETTE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT CALLS BACK. DEFINITELY PLOTTING AND PLANNING”

3. “Obstructionists”

Audio Recordings

All phone calls with Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department personnel have been recorded and preserved as evidence. These recordings document:

  • Specific statements by department personnel
  • Tone and manner of responses
  • Background conversations suggesting coordination
  • Timestamps establishing timeline
  • Pattern of obstruction across multiple calls

Written Documentation

Supporting documentation includes:

  • Phone logs showing dates and times of calls
  • Notes from each conversation
  • Follow-up emails (if any)
  • Formal public records requests
  • Responses (or lack thereof) from department

“When law enforcement agencies obstruct journalists’ access to public records, they’re not just violating state law—they’re violating the First Amendment. The public has a right to know what their government is doing, and journalists serve as the public’s eyes and ears. This obstruction is an attack on press freedom and government accountability.”

“Investigative journalism depends on access to public records. When government agencies obstruct that access, they’re not just violating the law—they’re undermining democracy itself. Citizens cannot hold their government accountable if they don’t know what their government is doing. This case demonstrates why press freedom is so essential.”


PART VIII. THE BIGGER PICTURE

Mississippi’s Transparency Problem

Lafayette County is not alone. Mississippi has a documented problem with government transparency:

State Rankings:

  • Mississippi ranks [X] out of 50 states for government transparency
  • Public records compliance is notoriously poor
  • Enforcement of transparency laws is weak
  • Culture of secrecy pervades many agencies

Recent Examples:

  • [Other Mississippi transparency violations]
  • [Patterns of obstruction]
  • [Lack of accountability]

National Context

The obstruction by Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department reflects a national trend:

Increasing Attacks on Press Freedom:

  • Journalists arrested for doing their jobs
  • Public records requests routinely denied
  • Retaliation against reporters who expose misconduct
  • Erosion of transparency norms

The Stakes:

  • Democracy requires informed citizenry
  • Informed citizenry requires free press
  • Free press requires access to information
  • Access to information requires enforcement of transparency laws

Why Beavers and James Matter

The specific cases of defendants Beavers and James may seem like small matters in the grand scheme. But they represent something larger:

Principles at Stake:

  • Right to know what government is doing
  • Accountability for law enforcement
  • Transparency in criminal justice system
  • Press freedom to investigate and report

If the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department can obstruct access to information about these defendants, they can obstruct access to information about anyone. If they can target this journalist, they can target any journalist.

The question is not just about Beavers and James. The question is about whether we still have government of, by, and for the people—or whether we have government that operates in secret, accountable to no one.


PART IX: CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION

Summary of Findings

This investigation has documented:

  1. Systematic Obstruction: Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department repeatedly refused to provide public records
  2. Legal Violations: Conduct violates Mississippi Public Records Act and potentially criminal statutes
  3. Coordination: Evidence suggests deliberate coordination to obstruct access
  4. Pattern: Part of broader pattern of targeting journalist who documents misconduct
  5. Concealment: Specific effort to conceal information about defendants Beavers and James

What Must Happen

Immediate Actions Required:

  1. Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department Must:
    • Immediately provide all requested public records
    • Apologize for obstruction
    • Implement transparency training for all staff
    • Establish clear public records procedures
    • Discipline personnel who violated the law
  2. Mississippi Attorney General Must:
    • Investigate violations of Public Records Act
    • Prosecute willful violations
    • Issue guidance on public records compliance
    • Establish enforcement mechanisms
  3. Mississippi Legislature Must:
    • Strengthen public records laws
    • Increase penalties for violations
    • Provide funding for enforcement
    • Close loopholes that enable obstruction
  4. Federal Authorities Must:
    • Investigate potential civil rights violations
    • Prosecute obstruction of justice if warranted
    • Protect journalists from retaliation
    • Ensure First Amendment rights are respected

How You Can Help

Take Action Now:

1. Contact Officials (Sample message below) 

2. Share This Story (#LafayetteCountyObstruction)

3. Support Investigative Journalism (Subscribe, donate, engage) 

4. Demand Accountability (Attend public meetings, write letters, organize)

Sample Message to Officials:

“Dear [Official Name],

I am writing to express serious concern about the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department’s obstruction of public records requests documented by We the People News.

The department has systematically refused to provide basic booking information about defendants Beavers and James, in apparent violation of Mississippi’s Public Records Act. This obstruction undermines transparency, accountability, and press freedom.

I urge you to:

  1. Investigate these violations immediately
  2. Ensure compliance with public records laws
  3. Hold accountable those who violated the law
  4. Implement reforms to prevent future obstruction

Government transparency is not optional. It is the law. And the law must be enforced.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your City, State]”

Final Thoughts

The Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department’s obstruction is not just about two defendants. It’s not just about one journalist. It’s not even just about Mississippi.

It’s about whether we still have a government that is accountable to the people. It’s about whether transparency laws mean anything. It’s about whether journalists can do their jobs without retaliation.

The answer to those questions depends on what happens next.

If the obstruction continues without consequences, the message is clear: transparency laws are meaningless, journalists can be targeted with impunity, and government can operate in secret.

But if there are consequences—if officials are held accountable, if the law is enforced, if transparency is restored—then the message is different: government serves the people, not the other way around.

The choice is ours.

We can accept obstruction, secrecy, and retaliation. Or we can demand transparency, accountability, and justice.

We the People News has made our choice. We will continue investigating. We will continue reporting. We will continue demanding transparency.

The question is: What will you choose?


ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION

This investigation was conducted by Matthew Reardon, founder and publisher of We the People News, a Marine veteran and investigative journalist committed to government accountability and transparency. All phone calls were legally recorded. All documentation is preserved as evidence. All claims are supported by verifiable facts.

UPDATES

This is a developing story. We the People News will continue investigating and will publish updates as new information becomes available. Subscribe for updates.

CONTACT

For more information, additional documentation, or to provide tips:

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This article represents investigative journalism based on documented evidence, recorded phone calls, and analysis of public records law. All individuals and agencies named have been given opportunity to respond. We the People News stands by this reporting and welcomes any corrections or additional context.


SHARE THIS INVESTIGATION

🔴 Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department caught obstructing public records requests, concealing information about defendants. Full investigation reveals pattern of coordination and potential criminal violations. #LafayetteCountyObstruction #MississippiTransparency

[Share on Twitter] [Share on Facebook] [Share on Reddit] [Email this article]


© 2025 We the People News. All rights reserved.

We the People News | Investigative Journalism | Government Accountability
Truth. Transparency. Justice.


Discover more from We The People News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Breaking News

Medical Dispensary Denies Disabled Marine Corps Veteran During PTSD Crisis

Published

on

By Don Matthews | We The People News

On Sunday afternoon, February 8, 2026, a disturbing incident occurred at The Apothecary medical marijuana dispensary in Lafayette, LA involving a disabled United States Marine Corps veteran during an acute medical crisis. The facts are not in dispute. What happened was not loud, not chaotic, and not confrontational. It was quiet, procedural, and revealing.

Matthew Reardon, a Marine Corps veteran with service-connected PTSD, entered The Apothecary with a valid medical marijuana license that he has held since September 2025. This was his first time visiting this dispensary. He was not seeking recreational use. He was seeking prescribed medication during an active PTSD episode triggered by recent events connected to years of documented government misconduct, false charges, incarceration, and systemic retaliation.

Reardon calmly explained to the staff that he was experiencing severe PTSD symptoms and needed fast-acting relief. He asked for guidance on the most effective and cost-efficient option available because he had exactly $15 accessible on his Cash App account. He was transparent about his situation. He did not ask for free medication. He asked for help navigating a system that brands itself as medical.

The lowest-priced product available was a single pre-rolled joint priced at $12.50. At checkout, Reardon was informed that the dispensary does not accept tap-to-pay. He then attempted to pay using his Cash App card. At that point, staff advised him that their payment system only processes transactions in $5 increments, meaning the $12.50 purchase would be automatically rounded up to $15. He was then told that an additional $3.50 card-processing fee would be added on top of that amount.

Reardon explained—again—that he had access to exactly $15 and no more. He explained that this medication was necessary to manage his PTSD symptoms in that moment. He asked for a supervisor.

When the manager arrived, Reardon reiterated the situation clearly and respectfully. He requested a reasonable accommodation: any adjustment that would allow him to obtain the prescribed medication without being priced out by arbitrary rounding and discretionary fees. Options existed. The price could have been adjusted. The fee could have been offset. A managerial override could have been used.

Instead, the manager stated that nothing could be changed in the system. Staff suggested Reardon leave the dispensary, go across the street, purchase another item he did not need, and attempt to obtain cash back—an impractical and dismissive suggestion given his disclosed financial and medical condition.

At no point did Reardon raise his voice, threaten staff, or disrupt business. He did not record inside the store out of respect. He was there for medicine, not confrontation. Yet despite clear knowledge of his disability, his medical crisis, and his inability to absorb additional fees, the dispensary refused all flexibility.

This is not merely a customer service issue. PTSD is a recognized disability under federal and state law. Medical marijuana dispensaries that hold themselves out as medical providers are expected to make reasonable modifications to policies when rigid enforcement denies disabled patients equal access to prescribed treatment.

Reardon was not asking for charity. He was asking for accommodation.

What makes this incident particularly troubling is the context. Reardon has lost nearly everything due to years of government abuse, including false charges dating back to 2017, prolonged incarceration, and the seizure and sale of his personal property while he was jailed. Those same false records continue to disqualify him from employment through background checks, trapping him in financial precarity.

Against that backdrop, a medical dispensary chose strict adherence to payment mechanics over human judgment during a medical emergency.

After leaving the dispensary without medication, Reardon exercised his First Amendment rights by preparing to stand on a public sidewalk outside the business.

This article exists so that members of the public who encounter that sign understand exactly what it refers to.

We The People News encourages The Apothecary to preserve all surveillance footage and transaction records from the time of this incident. Transparency serves everyone.

Medical care is not defined solely by licensure or product type. It is defined by whether institutions recognize the humanity and legal rights of the patients they serve—especially when those patients are disabled veterans seeking relief during a crisis.

This report is factual, contemporaneous, and accurate to the best of our knowledge. Any party wishing to dispute the facts is encouraged to do so with evidence.

— Don Matthews Reporting on the experience of Matthew Reardon


Discover more from We The People News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Exclusive: FBI database allegedly accessed by Red Cross shelter after man sought shelter during winter storm

At the center of the controversy is a question with implications far beyond one individual case: Are emergency shelters being used—intentionally or not—as gateways for law-enforcement screening, and are federal criminal databases being accessed outside lawful purposes during crises?

Published

on

A winter storm emergency shelter publicly advertised as open to anyone—“no registration, no screening”—has now become the focus of a federal complaint alleging misuse of one of the United States’ most sensitive law-enforcement databases.

The incident occurred on January 24, during a period of freezing temperatures in Louisiana, when Lafayette Consolidated Government opened warming shelters for the public. Local media broadcasts emphasized that anyone needing warmth could simply show up. The shelter at issue was operated by the American Red Cross, a private humanitarian organization.

According to a formal report now submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, events that followed raise serious questions about whether a federal criminal-justice database was accessed or leveraged after a private citizen sought shelter during the emergency.

From Humanitarian Aid to Law-Enforcement Action

The reporting individual states that he entered the warming shelter solely to escape freezing conditions, relying on public assurances that no identification, registration, or screening was required. He was not suspected of a crime at the time and was not informed of any law-enforcement involvement at the shelter.

Shortly thereafter, law-enforcement action was taken against him based on what was described as an “NCIC hit” connected to an unfinished or questionable warrant originating from New Orleans. The arrest was carried out publicly, and the individual was jailed.

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a federal database operated by the FBI through its Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) division. Access is strictly limited to authorized criminal-justice agencies and may only be used for legitimate criminal-justice purposes. Private entities, including nonprofit organizations, are not authorized to access NCIC or request queries.

Legal experts note that even sworn law-enforcement officers may not lawfully access NCIC for non-criminal purposes, including background screening, risk assessment, or requests initiated by private parties.

Federal law and CJIS policy are explicit: NCIC access is governed by statute and regulation, not by consent. Even if a private organization claims safety concerns or cooperation with police, those rationales do not authorize criminal-history checks outside a lawful investigative context.

Improper access or dissemination of NCIC data can trigger severe consequences, including administrative sanctions, loss of database access, and potential criminal exposure.

Missing Property and Escalating Harm

The situation escalated further after the arrest. According to sworn statements, the individual’s personal property was handled in two separate ways. While his jail property was inventoried, a backpack was seized separately by Lafayette Police and booked into the department’s evidence room.

When the backpack was later returned, his car keys were missing.

The keys had not been inventoried at the jail and were last known to be inside the backpack while it was in police custody. As of publication, the keys have not been returned, nor has any documentation been provided explaining their disappearance.

Despite this, city authorities have threatened to tow the individual’s vehicle for failing to move it—an action he says is impossible without the missing keys.

Civil-rights attorneys say towing a vehicle under such circumstances could constitute deprivation of property without due process and raise spoliation concerns if the vehicle is connected to disputed law-enforcement actions.

Federal Statutes Implicated

In his report to the FBI, the complainant states that the conduct described may implicate multiple federal statutes, including:

He emphasized that he is not making charging decisions but is reporting facts that warrant federal review.

A Broader Civil Liberties Question

At the center of the controversy is a question with implications far beyond one individual case: Are emergency shelters being used—intentionally or not—as gateways for law-enforcement screening, and are federal criminal databases being accessed outside lawful purposes during crises?

Civil-liberties advocates warn that blurring the line between humanitarian aid and law enforcement risks chilling people from seeking help during emergencies, especially unhoused individuals or those with past system involvement.

Emergency conditions, they note, do not suspend constitutional protections or federal data-access rules.

Public Record, Public Accountability

The FBI complaint was made contemporaneously creating a timestamped record before further enforcement actions—such as towing—could occur. The reporting individual has also issued formal preservation demands to prevent destruction or alteration of evidence.

As of publication, neither the American Red Cross nor local authorities have publicly addressed whether any NCIC query was run, who initiated it, or whether any federal criminal-justice data was accessed or shared.

What remains undisputed is the public promise made on January 24: that the warming shelter was open to anyone, with no screening.

Whether that promise was honored—and whether federal law was violated in the process—is now a matter of federal record.


Discover more from We The People News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

MAJOR VERDICT | How the Court Bent Law, Facts, and Time to Save the Government

Published

on


By Matthew Reardon| We The People News

Read the 19 page ruling by Judge Thomas Leblanc

The January 16, 2026 “Reasons and Judgment of Conviction” should trouble anyone who still believes courts exist to restrain government power rather than protect it.

What follows is not a disagreement with a judge’s discretion. It is a point-by-point exposure of how law was contorted, evidence was excused away, and constitutional standards were quietly lowered to preserve a prosecution that should never have survived.

This ruling was not merely wrong. It was constructed.

1. The Court Excused Destroyed Evidence Instead of Punishing It

The most glaring defect appears immediately: the court accepted the government’s claim that critical video evidence was “not preserved due to technical error.”

That evidence was not peripheral. It went to the heart of the case. It showed U.S. Marshals waving me forward, directing my movement, and initiating the interaction later characterized as criminal.

This footage was requested. Timely. Repeatedly. On the record.

The law on this is settled. When the government loses or destroys materially exculpatory evidence—especially after notice—it does not receive deference. It receives sanctions. In many cases, dismissal.

Instead, the court did the opposite. It credited the government’s explanation without scrutiny and then proceeded as if the evidence never mattered.

That is not neutral adjudication. That is insulation.

2. The Court Erased Entrapment by Pretending It Wasn’t Raised

Entrapment is not a buzzword. It is a doctrine grounded in the idea that the government may not manufacture crimes by inducing conduct it then punishes.

The record shows federal officers initiating contact, signaling me forward, escalating the encounter, and only enforcing once criticism intensified.

The ruling does not meaningfully analyze this.

There is no serious inquiry into inducement.
No examination of officer conduct.
No assessment of whether the alleged violation would have occurred but for government prompting.

Instead, entrapment is treated as if it barely exists—mentioned only obliquely, then discarded.

That omission is not accidental. It is necessary for the conviction to stand.

3. The Court Rewrote “Obstruction” to Mean “Possibility”

The regulation at issue criminalizes unreasonable obstruction of entrances.

The court never identifies a single person who was blocked.
Never finds a delayed entry.
Never cites a disrupted operation.

Why? Because none occurred.

The door was locked.
Marked “emergency exit only.”
Not used by the public.

To overcome this, the court substitutes speculation for fact—what could have happened, what officers felt, what security imagined.

That is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is conjecture elevated to conviction.

Courts do not convict people for what might have occurred. At least, they are not supposed to.

The ruling quietly downgrades the forum.

While acknowledging that courthouse steps are traditionally public, the court effectively treats the immediate exterior entrance area as something less—without citing a statute, regulation, or posted restriction converting it into a limited or nonpublic forum.

This maneuver matters. Once the forum is downgraded, constitutional scrutiny weakens. Government discretion expands.

But forum status is not decided by convenience. It is decided by history, access, and use.

The ruling offers none of that analysis—only assertion.

5. “Content Neutrality” Is Asserted, Not Proven

The court insists enforcement was content neutral.

The record says otherwise.

Recording was tolerated—until it documented Marshals.
Speech was tolerated—until it criticized Marshals.
Presence was tolerated—until the message became inconvenient.

Neutrality is not declared by judges. It is demonstrated by facts. And the facts here show escalation only after expressive activity crossed a line of criticism.

That is classic retaliatory enforcement.

6. The Court Pretended Speech and Conduct Are Separable

This ruling depends on a fiction: that speech and conduct can be surgically separated when enforcement is triggered by expression.

Protest is conduct.
Journalism is conduct.
Recording government officials is conduct.

The First Amendment protects these activities precisely because they occur in physical space and real time.

By pretending the case was about “conduct alone,” the court avoids confronting the constitutional problem it created. O and lets not forget about the many times throughout the order the judge made some type of reference to my language, even emphasized it. He can try to bend and twist it for some other reason, but that is a farce and this judgement bears weight to that. The Government got caught with its pants around its ankles. They got exposed and publicly criticized for it. This is what this retaliatory prosecution was all about.

7. The Missed Deadline Tells the Truth the Ruling Hides

The court ordered its own deadline: by or before January 15th.

It missed it.

Judges do not miss deadlines on easy cases. They miss them when facts conflict with outcomes.

The delay betrays hesitation.
The hesitation betrays doubt.
The doubt betrays the ruling.

This was not a clear conviction. It was a salvaged one.

8. Why This Conviction Was the Government’s Best Outcome—and Its Worst Mistake

An acquittal would have buried misconduct quietly.

A conviction creates a record.

This ruling now travels—to appellate judges not embedded in this courthouse, not invested in excusing Marshals, not tasked with justifying a prosecution built on missing evidence and speculative harm.

In trying to save the government, the court exposed it.

So yes, I will say this plainly.

Thank you, Judge Thomas Leblanc

Thank you for choosing a ruling that can be reviewed, reversed, and cited.

Because this case is no longer about me.

It is about whether the federal government can bait citizens, destroy evidence, criminalize journalism, and rely on judicial indulgence to make it all disappear.

That question is now on the record.

And it will be answered.

See the Judgement here

https://www.wtpnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/wp-1768599164457.pdf

Discover more from We The People News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending

HTML Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com

Discover more from We The People News

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading