Byron Donalds pays ‘body man’ with a rap sheet using campaign cash



U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) has used campaign funds to funnel large payments to his longtime associate and close friend Larry Wilcoxson — a man with a lengthy history of criminal convictions and allegations. Media reports have called Wilcoxson Donalds’ “right-hand man,” while the congressman, who announced his candidacy for governor of Florida in February, has referred to him as his personal “body man.”

Wilcoxson doesn’t appear on Donalds’ official staff roster, yet he and his company, Wilcoxson Consulting, received $133,450 from Donalds’ campaign across more than 160 disbursements between July 7, 2020, and March 24 of this year. The latest Federal Election Commission reporting shows that more than $86,000 of that total came after May 2024, signaling a possible expansion of Wilcoxson’s role with Donalds.

Propping up a 'right-hand man' with Wilcoxson’s rap sheet speaks volumes about the judgment of the man signing the checks.

The payments break down as follows:

  • Payroll: $75,250 (56.4%)
  • Payroll taxes: $18,750 (14%)
  • Consulting services: $22,500 (16.8%)
  • Travel reimbursements: $8,450 (6.3%)
  • Office supplies: $3,200 (2.4%)
  • Event expenses: $2,800 (2.1%)
  • Miscellaneous reimbursements: $1,500 (1.1%)
  • Other (unspecified): $1,000 (0.7%)

Wilcoxson’s criminal history, both alleged and confirmed, appears extensively in court records and media coverage.

One of the most serious accusations involves a 2006 child molestation case. According to an April 2023 report by the Florida Trident, police accused Wilcoxson of molesting a 13-year-old girl while he worked as a substitute teacher at an Indianapolis middle school. Though prosecutors later dismissed the charge, the Trident noted that “a look at the public record shows there are many questions still unanswered about the case.”

The Indianapolis Star reported that school officials fired Wilcoxson after he allegedly exposed himself to a female custodian. Federal court records show multiple accusers. When asked whether they were all lying, Wilcoxson dodged the question.

He didn’t hesitate to play the race card, though.

“In my America, in your America, only a black man will be guilty and will always be guilty,” he said when pressed about multiple accusations. Wilcoxson refused to answer questions about the child molestation case but admitted to videotaping his sexual encounters, called himself a “pimp,” and confessed to threatening a police officer’s family.

A 2008 federal lawsuit filed in Indianapolis, settled out of court in 2009, alleged that Wilcoxson molested a student — identified as “T.T.” — while working as a substitute teacher at Henry W. Longfellow Middle School. The girl’s mother, Valerie Davis, reported the alleged abuse. According to the lawsuit, the school district and Indianapolis police conducted a “superficial and flawed” investigation.

The complaint also claimed authorities treated the girl “hostilely,” even threatening her with arrest for filing a report.

A lifetime of trouble

Court records unearthed by the Florida Trident show that Wilcoxson’s rap sheet goes back to his teenage years. In Collier County, Florida, he faced charges including armed robbery at 14, aggravated battery, misdemeanor battery, and grand theft auto. While a student at Florida State University studying — ironically — criminology, he racked up more charges between 1997 and 2000. He took plea deals for forgery and credit card fraud, beat a petty theft charge at trial, and got a criminal mischief charge dropped.

In 2015, a court sentenced Wilcoxson to six months in jail for grand theft auto, but the conviction was later vacated. Combined with a judge’s decision to withhold adjudication on earlier charges, Wilcoxson’s record, on paper at least, shows no standing convictions — a technical clean slate that masks a long and troubling history.

In March 2022, Melissa Kamin — Wilcoxson’s former fiancée — filed for a protective order, alleging he physically assaulted her in their Marco Island home by lifting her onto a kitchen counter and restraining her. She also claimed Wilcoxson later tracked her to Lauderhill, broke into her car, and tossed her belongings.

RELATED: DeSantis reacts to Byron Donalds officially entering governor's race

Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Wilcoxson denied the allegations, insisting he never acted violently toward Kamin. Court records show Kamin obtained a temporary restraining order but later withdrew her petition in May 2022.

Wilcoxson’s record of physical intimidation doesn’t stop there. According to a September 2022 report from Gulf Coast News, he and Donalds confronted Collier County School Board candidate Kelly Lichter in a supermarket, with Donalds yelling about a lawsuit involving his wife. In a separate incident, Wilcoxson reportedly lunged at Lichter’s husband, Nick, during a Collier County Republican Executive Committee meeting — forcing a deputy and others to restrain him.

His go-to move

The Trident report casts Wilcoxson as an “intimidator” for Donalds, with critics like former Collier County Republican Committeeman Rob Tolp raising alarms about his temperament and pattern of threatening behavior.

“He resorts to threats of violence almost instantaneously,” Tolp told the outlet. “It’s almost like it’s his first go-to move. That’s a bad sign.”

Using campaign funds to pay unofficial advisers occupies a legal gray zone. It’s not outright illegal if the individual performs legitimate campaign work. But propping up a “right-hand man” with Wilcoxson’s rap sheet speaks volumes about the judgment of the man signing the checks. Whether Florida voters will care — or call it out — remains to be seen.

North Dakota sues Biden for shutting down oil and gas lease sales that will cost the state tens of millions in revenue



North Dakota is suing the Biden administration over its halting of new oil and gas leases on federal land and water. The shutdown will cause significant damage to the state's economy, and North Dakota has already lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota Western Division, asserts that President Joe Biden's suspension of lease sales in North Dakota is unlawful. The complaint claims the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management illegally halted oil and gas lease auctions in the state.

North Dakota's lawsuit calls on the BLM to reschedule the two lost lease sales, and would prevent the agency from blocking future sales in the state.

The lawsuit said the two canceled sales this year have cost the state more than $80 million in lost revenue. The state claimed that the canceled leases could cost the state "billions" in the coming months if the leases are not reinstated. North Dakota is the second-biggest crude oil-producing U.S. state, and a bulk of its tax revenue come from oil and gas production.

"Oil and gas production are central to North Dakota's economy and the welfare of its citizens, responsible for 54% of the value of the State's economy, generating approximately 76% of the State's tax revenue and creating approximately 66,000 good-paying jobs in the State," the complaint states.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said in a statement, "I have taken this action to protect North Dakota's economy, the jobs of our hard-working citizens, and North Dakota's rights to control its own natural resources."

"Without following the legally required procedures, [the Bureau of Land Management] arbitrarily canceled the March and June lease auctions and shows every sign of continuing to violate its statutory duties," Stenehjem's news release stated.

"In addition to being a foolish idea, President Biden's moratorium on oil and gas leasing on public lands is illegal," North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer said in a statement. "It increases federal and state budget shortfalls, hampers state and private mineral owners' rights, and makes the United States less energy independent and more reliant on foreign producers who are not all good actors, like Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela."

The Bureau of Land Management declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Last month, a federal judge in Louisiana temporarily blocked Biden's suspension of oil and gas leasing on public land and water. The judge noted his ruling applied nationwide.

Stenehjem said, "I welcome and support the Louisiana federal district court's decision, and I look forward to defending North Dakota's vital interests in its natural resources and continuing to put the pressure on the Federal government to do the right thing for our state."

In March, a lawsuit against Biden was launched by 21 states over the president's executive order that shut down the Keystone XL pipeline. The lawsuit included North Dakota as well as Texas, Montana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Biden halted oil and gas lease sales once he entered office in January, citing climate change concerns as the reason for shutting down the leasing.

Federal court to hear Texas GOP argument to throw out 127,000 drive-thru votes



A federal judge in Texas will hear a case brought by the state Republican Party seeking to have nearly 127,000 ballots disqualified in Harris County.

The emergency hearing will take place on Monday after Republicans sued to invalidate early ballots cast at drive-thru polling stations, which they say violate the U.S. Constitution. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen will preside over the hearing, Fox News reports.

Harris County, home to the city of Houston, is a Democratic stronghold in Texas. According to the Texas Tribune, drive-thru ballots account for about 10% of all in-person early voting ballots cast in Harris County. If the federal court sides with state Republicans, nearly 127,000 people will have their votes thrown out.

The Texas Supreme Court already rejected a similar lawsuit brought by the same plaintiffs to have the votes discounted. The court did not issue an opinion explaining its decision.

Drive-thru voting in Harris County was established in July during the state primary runoff elections. Harris County set up 10 drive-thru polling locations in October where voters concerned about the coronavirus pandemic would have an opportunity to vote from their vehicles. Voters arrive in their vehicles, have their registrations and identifications confirmed by poll workers, and are given an electronic tablet through their car windows to vote.

In an emergency lawsuit, Harris County Republicans sought to have the votes dismissed, arguing the drive-thru program was an illegal expansion of curbside voting. Under Texas state law, curbside voting is reserved for voters with disabilities. They also argue the practice violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives state legislatures the power to decide how elections are run, not local governments.

"Unless stopped, illegal votes will be cast and counted in direct violation of the Texas Election Code and the United States Constitution and result in the integrity of elections in Harris County being compromised," the petition to the court said.

The Harris County Clerk's Office argues that its drive-thru polling locations are separate polling places, distinct from curbside spots, and therefore should be available to all voters.

Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins on Sunday filed a legal brief petitioning Judge Hanen to reject the GOP lawsuit.

"The Texas Supreme Court has twice declined to interfere," the brief says. "The fact that the final arbiter of the Texas Election Code found no justification for interfering with drive-through polling places—based on the same legal arguments—in the middle of the election is an unmistakable indication that the public interest is best served by allowing the election to proceed without interference."

Two Kroger workers fired after refusing to wear LGBTQ apron. Now federal watchdog is suing chain for religious discrimination.



The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against supermarket chain Kroger on behalf of two women who said the store fired them after they refused to wear aprons that included an LGBTQ symbol, ABC News reported.

What are the details?

The lawsuit claims ex-workers Brenda Lawson and Trudy Rickerd said the company implemented a policy in April 2019 that required employees to wear an apron that included a rainbow heart, which they say endorses LGBTQ values, the network said.

The women claimed wearing the symbol would violate their religious beliefs, and that they even tried to offer alternatives, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit.

Lawson, who was 72 at the time, said she offered to wear the apron with her name tag covering the emblem, but the Conway, Arkansas, store allegedly refused, the network said.

"I am requesting a reasonable accommodation of this dress code with regard to my religious belief," she wrote in a letter requesting religious accommodations, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit. "I am simply asking to wear my name badge over the heart logo."

Rickerd, who was 57 at the time, said she offered to wear a different apron without the emblem and sent a letter explaining why she felt she couldn't comply with the policy, the network reported.

"I have a sincerely held religious belief that I cannot wear a symbol that promotes or endorses something that is in violation of my religious faith," she wrote in the letter, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit. "I respect others who have a different opinion and am happy to work alongside others who desire to wear the symbol. I am happy to buy another apron to ensure there is no financial hardship on Kroger."

How did Kroger allegedly respond to the women's requests?

Kroger, the country's largest supermarket chain, allegedly denied both requests and retaliated against the women by disciplining and ultimately firing them, the network reported, citing the lawsuit.

ABC News said Teresa Dickerson, a Kroger communication representative, declined the network's request for comment and cited a standard against speaking publicly on pending litigation.

Anything else?

The network — citing the lawsuit — added that Kroger didn't fire other employees who declined to wear the new apron or covered the heart emblem without requesting religious accommodations.

The EEOC — which is in charge of enforcing anti-workplace discrimination laws — filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Monday, ABC News said. The federal watchdog's suit alleges conduct that violates the Title VII, a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, the network said.

"Companies have an obligation under Title VII to consider requests for religious accommodations, and it is illegal to terminate employees for requesting an accommodation for their religious beliefs," Delner-Franklin Thomas, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, said in a statement Tuesday, according to ABC News.

The suit seeks back pay and other compensatory damages as well as an injunction against future discrimination, the network said.