A 16-year-old student was suspended from Central Davidson High School in Lexington, North Carolina, last year for uttering the term "illegal alien" during a vocabulary lesson in English class. In addition to his temporary removal, Christian McGhee was effectively characterized as a racist for making what the school's vice principal Eric Anderson claimed was a "racially insensitive remark that caused a class disturbance."
The class environment that McGhee returned to was apparently so hostile — rife with bullying and threats — that his parents had to take him out of school. According to the Liberty Justice Center, the firm that sued the Davidson County Board of Education on McGhee's behalf alleging violations of his First and 14th Amendment rights, the minor ended up completing the semester through a homeschooling program.
'School officials have effectively fabricated a racial incident out of thin air.'
Court documents obtained by the Carolina Journal reveal that the school board is now willing to concede that the teen's language in class — language used by Congress, the North Carolina General Assembly, and the U.S. Supreme Court — wasn't racist after all and to pay up.
McGhee's lawsuit claimed that on April 9, 2024, the teen was permitted to use the restroom during English class. Upon his return, he found the class engaged in discussion where the word "aliens" came up. The lawsuit claimed that McGhee asked for clarification on the type of aliens being referenced — whether "space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards."
A Hispanic student subsequently joked that he was going to "kick [McGhee's] ass."
Both teens were later hauled into Anderson's office. The complaint alleged that when the Hispanic teen told Anderson he was not offended, the vice principal intimated that he should be, noting McGhee's words "were a big deal."
McGhee was ultimately suspended and notified that "there shall be no right to an appeal of the principal's decision to impose a short term suspension (10 days or less) to the Superintendent or Board of Education."
Dean McGee, senior counsel for educational freedom at the Liberty Justice Center, stated after filing the lawsuit last year, "School officials have effectively fabricated a racial incident out of thin air and branded our client as a racist without even giving him an opportunity to appeal."
Nearly a year into the legal battle, the school board blinked.
'Through your reckless attempt to slander my name, you have successfully re-traumatized my family.'
A Friday court filing indicates that the DCBE and the McGhee family have reached a settlement which, if approved by the judge, will have the school board publicly apologize to the teen and fork over $20,000 in compensation to resolve the litigation. The Carolina Journal indicated that the compensation is supposed to help the family with the cost of the teen's new private school.
While the DCBE maintains that the suspension was appropriate due to class disruption, it also agreed to "remove any reference to race or racial bias as a motive for the comments from his educational record, which contains no other incidences of discipline related to racial bias," said the court documents.
Additionally, the DCBE acknowledged "the inappropriate response to this matter by a sitting member," apparently referencing former school board member Ashley Carroll's reported smear of the teen's mother online.
Leah McGhee, the plaintiff's mother, alleged last year that despite hearing nothing back from school officials about the possibility of an appeal, "two board members did choose to send messages to county leaders and residents with my personal arrest record from 14 years ago and encourage them to post this on social media."
Leah McGhee noted further that the posts allegedly shared online by board members Carroll and Alan Beck omitted mention of her reintegration into society and her work since helping people with addiction.
"Through your reckless attempt to slander my name, you have successfully re-traumatized my family," said Leah McGhee. "Your weak attempt to assault my character has failed, but your malicious character has been highlighted. It is my opinion that two members on this board are highly corrupt."
Carroll resigned in April after being charged with DWI after getting into a car crash that reportedly injured a teen student in the district. Her departure may account for why the settlement references only a confidential apology from a single board member over Zoom or Microsoft Teams.
"On Friday, we filed a motion asking the court to approve a settlement that would resolve this matter," Dean McGee told the Carolina Journal. "Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final. We'll have more to say after that hearing, but we're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A Colombian national in the U.S. illegally is now staring down decades in federal prison after she allegedly collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in public assistance and allegedly cast a ballot in the 2024 election.
According to a press release from the Department of Justice, Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez, 59, has managed to live in the U.S. illegally for more than two decades after she assumed a stolen identity. Through that stolen ID, she allegedly obtained nine other state IDs, including a REAL ID from Massachusetts. She also applied for a U.S. passport, claiming to be a citizen born in Puerto Rico, court documents said.
'The right to vote is one of the many privileges of being a US citizen. Government funded programs for those in need are intended to be safety nets for those living in our country lawfully.'
That alleged stolen identity also provided Orovio-Hernandez access to various public assistance programs. In all, she has been accused of stealing more than $400,000 in improper benefits: nearly 15 years' worth of Section 8 rental assistance totaling $259,589; more than a decade of Social Security benefits worth $101,257; and almost 20 years of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits worth another $43,348, the DOJ press release claimed.
RELATED: 16 noncitizens apparently voted in Michigan in 2024 — and liberals are cheering about it
Moreover, Orovio-Hernandez reportedly used the stolen identity to register to vote in Boston, Massachusetts, in January 2023. "In Section F of that application, labeled 'Voter Registration,' the defendant checked a box affirming that she was a U.S. citizen," court documents said.
Then on November 5, 2024, a ballot was cast under the alleged stolen identity, the City of Boston Election Department reported, according to court documents. Security footage taken at a bank in Boston that day appeared to capture Orovio-Hernandez wearing an "I voted" sticker on her shirt.
RELATED: Illegal aliens aren’t just ‘guests’ — they’re future voters
Orovio-Hernandez has now been charged with one count of false representation of a Social Security number, one count of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport, one count of aggravated identity theft, three counts of receiving stolen government money or property, one count of fraudulent voter registration, and one count of fraudulent voting.
Many of those charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, so if convicted, Orovio-Hernandez could end up serving decades behind bars in addition to paying heavy fines. She could also be deported.
"For more than 20 years, this defendant is alleged to have built an entire life on the foundation of a stolen identity — including illegally voting in our presidential election and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits intended for Americans in need," said a statement from United States Attorney Leah Foley, according to the press release.
"The right to vote is one of the many privileges of being a U.S. citizen. Government-funded programs for those in need are intended to be safety nets for those living in our country lawfully — not support an illegal alien without a right to be here. Ms. Orovio-Hernandez was entitled to none of these privileges as a Colombian citizen who was unlawfully in this country."
H/T: Fox News
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury last week on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.
Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Judging from the courthouse footage recently obtained from Milwaukee County by WISN-TV through an open records request, her defense has its work cut out.
The federal indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple "affirmative acts" to assist Flores-Ruiz evade arrest following his pre-trial April 18 appearance in her courtroom, including:
The original FBI charging document goes into far more detail, drawing on witness testimony and other inputs.
The footage appears to corroborate a number of the allegations made in both documents.
— (@)
In the footage, Dugan can be seen confronting federal agents in the hallway outside her courtroom, then directing them away to speak to the chief judge.
The FBI charging document notes that after learning of the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Dugan and another judge approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway.
The document notes further that Dugan, who was "visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor," told the deportation officer to leave the courthouse. After the officer indicated he had an administrative warrant, Dugan allegedly suggested that he instead needed a judicial warrant.
The judge then allegedly ordered the deportation officer and other federal agents to report to the chief judge's office.
'Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again.'
Seizing upon the distraction, the Mexican national and his attorney can be seen in the video sneaking out of Dugan's courtroom through a jury door not open to the public.
Additional footage obtained by WISN shows Flores-Ruiz take off running upon exiting the building while federal agents gave chase.
Despite Dugan's alleged efforts, law enforcement was ultimately able to capture Flores-Ruiz. The illegal alien reportedly remains in federal custody.
The Department of Homeland Security previously told Blaze News, "Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected ICE agents away from this criminal illegal alien to obstruct the arrest and try to help him evade arrest. Thankfully, our FBI partners chased down this illegal alien, arrested him and removed him from American communities."
Dugan pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on May 15.
After seeing the footage, Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany (Wisc.) stated, "Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again. A judge who puts criminal illegal aliens above victims has no place in our courts."
Last week, Dugan's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."
'These plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity.'
Her attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution."
While she had no luck with her motion to dismiss, Dugan landed an anti-Trump judge with an apparent ax to grind.
Blaze News previously reported that Lynn Adelman, the Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge presiding over Dugan's case, is a former Democratic state senator with a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law. Dugan — who could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on Thursday.
Dugan's attorneys appear to think that the U.S. Supreme Court has provided her with the means to dodge accountability.
They noted in a Wednesday motion to dismiss the indictment obtained by Axios that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."
Here, attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
This is the ruling that prompted apoplexy among Democrats, demands for conservative justices to be impeached, and accusations that the high court was "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."
Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution," adding that "judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally."
'Unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.'
The apparent suggestion is that the following actions, which the indictment accuses her of taking, were official acts:
In Trump v. United States, the high court wrote:
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.
Dugan's attorneys further argued on the basis of this specific assertion by the high court that the Wisconsin judge's "subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity."
"The government's prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional," wrote the attorneys. "Judge Dugan reserves her right to seek other relief, including by other motions before and at trial. But the immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her."
When asked about the use of the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Blaze News, "I don't think the analogy is appropriate in this case," adding, "the dispute is going to be whether she acted in her capacity as a judge."
"The government's response is going to be, 'What you did has nothing to do with judicial decision-making, the management of your court room. You went out; you interfered with federal law enforcement; you came back in, and ushered people out of the courtroom in a way to obstruct justice that had nothing to do with your so-called management in the courtroom,'" continued Fitton. "'This was a crime that was being committed in a courtroom, not by a judge, but by ... a person acting as a citizen, not as a judge.'"
Fitton suggested further that the Trump DOJ would likely appeal a ruling in Dugan's favor, in part due to the administration's "seriousness about protecting their agents and the public from these illegal alien criminals" and the possible emboldening impact such a ruling might have on other activist judges.
"It doesn't matter what line of work you are in. If you break the law, we will follow the facts, and we will prosecute you," Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the case last month.
Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, is next expected in court on July 9. Her trial is reportedly set for July 21.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan's case. That's likely good news for Dugan, as the Democratic lawmaker turned Clinton appointee has made no secret of his animus toward President Donald Trump and Republicans.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'If you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,' said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
Rioters came too prepared — some with preprinted signs, some with safety masks — to believe they arrived without organization.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed in his final judgment issued that carve-outs ‘are unconstitutional and invalid.’
The 'Free Palestine' movement is a threat the lazy media should stop protecting and start investigating.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com