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.

Why Consent or “Safety” Does Not Apply

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:

• 18 U.S.C. § 641 (misuse or conversion of government information),
• 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (unauthorized or exceeded access to protected computer systems), and
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to misuse federal systems).

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.

---

By Matthew Reardon| We The People News

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.

4. The Forum Analysis Is a Legal Shell Game

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

This was a False, Staged Arrest from the Very Beginning

On August 11, 2023, I was pulled over by the Galveston Police Department while commuting onto the island at approximately 2AM. What began as a traffic stop had in a very quick time turned into a DWI Investigation, with an arrest of me made on suspicion of DWI. Here is what is so bizarre. I was not under the influence of ANY substance or alcohol! I had touched neither.

From the moment the officers made contact, it was clear this was not a standard traffic stop. Galveston police claimed to smell alcohol coming from my vehicle. I immediately denied consuming any alcohol, stating I had not had a single drop in over 3 to 4 years.

Then they asked me to step out of my vehicle and perform a field sobriety test. I refused, explaining that these tests are notoriously rigged. Instead, I demanded a breathalyzer test—the most reliable, scientific way to prove my sobriety.

As a First Amendment Auditor, a Journalist, and a constitutional rights activist, I was recording the entire encounter. Two other journalists were also filming from a nearby location.

Despite my repeated demands for a breathalyzer, Galveston police insisted on a field sobriety test. Again, I refused, demanded an attorney, and reiterated my request for a breathalyzer test.

Instead of following standard procedure, the officers arrested me for suspicion of DWI, loaded me into the back of a truck, and transported me to the hospital for a blood test.

Even though they claimed the odor of alcohol was their probable cause, they refused to administer the breathalyzer test I repeatedly requested. Instead, they proceeded with a forcible blood draw, stating that they were applying for a warrant to take my blood sample.

However, I was never shown any warrant. Instead, nearly 10 officers forcibly restrained me while I was handcuffed behind my back. They stabbed my right arm multiple times with a needle in a forced blood draw—without any proof of intoxication or lawful justification.

This was brutal, unconstitutional, and illegal.

Afterward, they transported me to the Galveston County Jail.

The Conspiracy Against Me

While I was in booking, I overheard my arresting officer on a phone call with Deputy Kandi Beavers of the Lafayette County, Mississippi Sheriff’s Department.

I listened as Deputy Beavers allegedly conspired with the officer to charge me with a felony DUI third offense—despite the highly controversial nature of a previous 2021 DUI case involving her.

That 2021 DUI is still under appeal, as crucial evidence proving my innocence was “conveniently” lost before my November 2021 trial. CLICK THIS LINK to view my Appeal in MS Court of Appeals

For years, I have maintained that Deputy Beavers perjured herself on the stand, lying under oath to wrongfully convict me and send me to prison for a year in 2022.

So, when I was released from prison on August 1, 2023, I did exactly what anyone who has been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated due to someone else’s lies should do: I exposed her.

I released a video on August 2, 2023 proving that Kandace Beavers intentionally lied under oath in court, which resulted in my wrongful imprisonment for a year. This video can be seen by clicking here

And for that, she retaliated. Both her and Hoby James featured at the beginning of that video making the traffic stop on me. They tried to set me up once again in order to keep the truth suppressed.

This wasn’t just a routine traffic stop or arrest.

This was a coordinated, multi-state conspiracy involving:

• The Lafayette County Sheriff’s Department
• Deputy Kandace Beavers and Deputy Hoby James
• The Galveston Police Department

Recorded calls confirm that Beavers and James orchestrated this setup to have me arrested. They wanted me silenced because of my previous work exposing their corruption.

This Never Should Have Been a Felony

Even if I had been intoxicated while driving (which I wasn’t), this never should have been a felony. At most, it could have been a misdemeanor, but this was never about the law—it was about silencing me. This was a deliberate, targeted attack to try and put me back in prison by using Galveston law enforcement to do Lafayette County’s dirty work. Lafayette County needed me charged with a felony charge so they could revoke my probation and give me a much longer sentence than they could if I had been charged with a misdemeanor.

Lets examine Galveston Police Officer William Osteen

Now, let’s talk about Officer William Osteen—the corrupt Galveston Police officer who arrested me on August 11, 2023.

Officer Osteen’s bodycam footage shows one of the very first questions Officer Osteen asks Defendant is “You an auditor man?” (Ex. E, 02:48).

He then tells another officer “Hey, I’m doing this one, this is an auditor.” (Ex. E, 03:04-03:06).

After having less than a minute of conversation with Defendant, Officer Osteen later discusses with Officer Larry Murph how they can go ahead and arrest Defendant, stating he “can go off of slurred speech and the smell . . .” (Ex. E, 07:56-07:59). This clearly demonstrates Officer Osteen had already decided to arrest Defendant after less than a minute of interacting with him, before having made any significant observations.

Osteen claimed I was “Walking: Heavy Footed.” However, all video evidence shows the Defendant walking and standing normally. Officer Osteen had virtually no opportunity to observe Defendant’s walking prior to arresting him and obtaining the Warrant. (Ex. E, 09:44-12:38). The bodycam footage shows that Officer Osteen wasn’t even facing the Defendant for the brief period of time that Defendant was walking. (Ex. E, 09:44-10:11). Also, “heavy-footed” typically denotes slow, laborious movements,
but Osteen would later testify that Defendant was “extremely jittery.” (Ex. D, pg. 23, ln. 25).

In his Affidavit, Osteen claimed “Odor of Alcoholic Beverage on breath: Moderate.” The Toxicology Report revealed no trace of alcohol in Defendant’s blood. (Ex. B, pg. 1). “Moderate” is the second highest level of odor, and would not be present for a defendant with no alcohol in his system. Further, Officer Osteen clarified multiple times on camera that he did not smell alcohol on Defendant’s breath, only from his vehicle. (See, e.g., “Osteen Bodycam 1,” Ex. E, 09:35-09:39; “Osteen Bodycam 2,” Ex. F, 05:55-06:10). He would later testify under oath that once Defendant stepped out of his vehicle, he could not detect an odor of alcohol emitting from the Defendant. (Ex. D, pg. 24, lns. 1-5). Yet he still marked that there was a moderate smell of alcohol on Defendant’s breath in the Affidavit, an observation Officer Osteen had already demonstrated that he knew to be false.

Additionally in his affidavit for a blood warrant, Osteen marked “Refused to provide a sample.” Defendant clearly offered to take a breathalyzer test prior to being taken into custody, and consented to be taken into custody for that purpose. (Ex. E, 10:30-12:10). Officer Osteen had no probable cause to arrest Defendant at the point he took Defendant into custody, having smelled no alcohol nor observed any symptoms of intoxication, as described above. Officer Osteen would later testify that he did not suspect a substance other than alcohol, except that Defendant demonstrated a willingness to take a breathalyzer. (Ex. D, pg. 24, Lns. 11-21). However, being willing to take a breathalyzer is not a sign of intoxication which would justify a blood warrant, and Officer Osteen recorded only his alleged observations regarding alcohol consumption in the Affidavit. Officer Osteen intentionally omitted Defendant’s willingness to take a breathalyzer from the Affidavit so that he could use Defendant’s “refusal” as evidence supporting the Warrant.

Officer Osteen would later testify at the probation revocation hearing that Defendant’s “pupils were very small” and “he had pinpoint pupils” (Ex. D, pg. 24, ln. 10, & pg. 35, ln. 7). This is the exact opposite of the dilated pupils described in the Affidavit. Officer Osteen either did not get a good look at Defendant’s eyes and was just making something up in the Affidavit—a reckless disregard for the truth—or he changed his story and perjured himself once he discovered that the Toxicology Report revealed no trace of alcohol in Defendant’s blood.

Between the time of the Affidavit and the time of the probation revocation hearing, Officer Osteen changed the symptoms he claims to have observed from alcohol (slow, thick-tongued, slurred speech; dilated pupils; smell of alcohol on breath) to another substance instead (fast speech; small pupils; jittery movements). Each observation was made under oath, but they obviously aren’t both true. Such a fundamental shift in observations, under oath, suggests intentional misrepresentation rather than innocent mistake.

And here’s the real kicker: Osteen perjured himself twice in my probation revocation hearing, falsely testifying that my toxicology report showed alcohol in my system.

 This is critical because without these false statements, there was no probable cause for my arrest.

Officer Osteen made these materially false or misleading statements knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, in an attempt to set me up.

If you scroll to the bottom of my case docket, you’ll see that on February 25, 2025, my attorney, Ben Campagna, filed a motion for a Franks hearing.

What Is a Franks Hearing?

A Franks Hearing (based on Franks v. Delaware) is held when a warrant affidavit contains false statements or intentional omissions that mislead the judge.

If you remove the false information, there would be no probable cause for the warrant or the arrest.

That’s exactly what happened in my case.

The arrest warrant was based on lies.

And this isn’t just a minor mistake—this was deliberate perjury.

What is the next step?

If Galveston doesn’t drop this case immediately, I am demanding a trial ASAP.

Once this case goes to trial, everything comes out:

• The fabricated charges
• The corrupt police officers
• The illegal extradition
• The multi-agency conspiracy

If this case goes to trial, Officer Osteen will never be able to testify in court again. He needs to be criminally charged. I will be relentless in my pursuit of this along with identifying every single case that Osteen has ever testified as a witness on. I will ensure that the attorneys for each of these cases receives every last piece of evidence and an unconditional guarantee by me to be deposed and testify as a witness. I will demand, collectively, for each and every one of these cases to be reviewed.

This Is Bigger Than Me

If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.

This isn’t just about me—this is about precedent.

Every time they get away with violating someone’s rights, it empowers them to do it again and again and again.

And that’s why I’m fighting this.

 Here is the 84 Page Franks Motion

Have you seen the new music video that exposes the corrupt state actors?

---