Colombian woman charged with illegally voting in 2024 election stealing $400,000 in taxpayer funded benefits
A Colombian woman living illegally in the United States lived under a stolen identity for more than two decades, improperly received more than $400,000 in stolen federal benefits, and illegally voted in the 2024 presidential election, federal prosecutors said Thursday.
Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez, 59, also obtained welfare benefits, a REAL ID and eight other state ID's, the Justice Department said.
Orovio-Hernandez allegedly used the stolen identity to submit a fraudulent voter registration in January 2023, and cast a ballot in last year's presidential election, prosecutors said. She was captured on surveillance camera at a bank wearing an "I voted" sticker on Nov. 5, 2024, Election Day, according to court documents.
Mom Of Girl Allegedly Killed By Illegals Says Wildlife Refuge Renaming 'Means The World' To Family
She is charged with false representation of a Social Security number; making a false statement in an application for a United States passport; aggravated identity theft; receiving stolen government money or property; fraudulent voter registration; and fraudulent voting. Orovio-Hernandez has been held in federal custody since February, when she was charged with identity theft and other offenses.
Authorities said Orovio-Hernandez improperly received $400,000 in federal benefits: $259,589 in Section 8 rental assistance benefits from October 2011 through January 2025; $101,257 in Social Security disability benefits from July 2014 through January; and $43,348 in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits or SNAP, from April 2005 through January.
Read On The Fox News App
Immigration Expert Warns Chinese Illegal Aliens Using Canadian City As Gateway To Us
"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 U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley. "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."
She also applied for a U.S. passport, claiming to be a U.S. citizen who was born in Puerto Rico, authorities said.
Orovio-Hernandez wasn't entitled to any of the benefits she received, said Foley, citing her illegal presence in the U.S.
"Stealing someone's identity to unlawfully obtain Social Security benefits is not just theft—it's a long-term abuse of a system meant to support those truly in need," said Amy Connelly, the special agent in charge for the Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of the Inspector General in the Boston-New York field division.Original article source: Colombian woman charged with illegally voting in 2024 election stealing $400,000 in taxpayer funded benefits
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
25 minutes ago
- CBS News
Montana Supreme Court says several state abortion curbs are unconstitutional
Helena, Mont. — - Montana's Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that struck down as unconstitutional several laws restricting abortion access, including a ban beyond 20 weeks of gestation. The measures approved by Republican lawmakers in 2021 had been blocked since a judge issued a preliminary injunction against them that year. While the case was pending, voters passed an initiative that enshrined the right to abortions in the Montana Constitution. Justices said in Monday's ruling that the state constitution included a "right to be left alone" and have access to abortions. They said that right wasn't affected by a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended a half-century of nationwide abortion rights. The Montana Senate debates a bill during transmittal week in the state Capitol on March 5, 2025, in Helena. Thom Bridge/Independent Record via AP The Montana laws also included a prohibition against telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication, a 24-hour waiting period after giving informed consent, and a requirement for providers to give patients the option of viewing an ultrasound or listening to the fetal heart tone. Planned Parenthood of Montana challenged the measures. Justices cited a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that said the state constitution's right to privacy includes a woman's right to obtain an abortion before the fetus is viable from the provider of her choice. The state argued that the 1999 ruling was wrongly decided, and has tried unsuccessfully on several occasions to get the Montana Supreme Court to overturn it. The Legislature in 2023 passed another slate of bills seeking to limit abortion access. Last year's initiative to make abortion a constitutional right in the state passed with backing from 58% of voters. An anti-abortion group called the Montana Family Foundation on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the voter-approved initiative. The group claims voters who registered on Election Day were denied the chance to fully review the initiative because the ballot included only a summary. The full text was in a pamphlet mailed to registered voters.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
See how the national debt grew to more than $36 trillion
See how the national debt grew to more than $36 trillion The United States owes more than $36 trillion. Washington now spends close to $2 trillion more each year than it collects in revenue, forcing the Treasury Department to borrow to make up the difference. Which means the national debt is still growing. Without major changes, the debt will soon be bigger as a share of the economy than when it peaked at the end of World War II. Most of that debt has accumulated over the past 20 years. In 2001, the nation actually had a cash surplus, when the Treasury collected more in taxes than it spent on government services. Since then, four presidents, 10 sessions of Congress and two wars have contributed to the tide of red ink. Thanks in part to policy decisions made generations ago, Social Security and Medicare are growing in cost, also adding to the debt. More recent decisions — budget-busting tax cuts, bipartisan spending deals and staggering sums to cope with the coronavirus pandemic — have all forced the nation to sink more deeply in debt. Here are eight key moments that show how we got here. The Bush tax cuts | June 7, 2001 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating June 2001 when the Bush tax cuts were passed. Tax cuts signed into law $5.7 trillion Total debt before the Bush tax cuts President George W. Bush signs the first of two major tax cuts into law, slashing rates on ordinary income as well as on capital gains and dividends. In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Bush tax cuts added roughly $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The majority of these tax cuts would later be made permanent in a deal between congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama, adding to their cost. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan | March 19, 2003 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Start of war in Iraq $6.5 trillion Total debt before the war in Iraq After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States invades Iraq. America would go on to spend roughly 20 years fighting wars in the Middle East, leading to a surge in spending on the Pentagon and veterans. A Harvard analysis has found that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the nation between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. Prescription drug expansion | Jan. 1, 2006 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating January 2006, when Medicare Part D was enacted. Medicare Part D enacted $8.4 trillion Total debt when Medicare Part D went into effect Medicare Part D — a major expansion of Medicare that offered prescription drug coverage to seniors — goes into effect nearly three years after being signed into law by Bush. Republicans who controlled Congress did not pay for the popular, but expensive, initiative. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Great Recession and response | Dec. 1, 2008 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating December 2008, the start of the Great Recession. Start of Great Recession $10.1 trillion Total debt at the start of the Great Recession A crisis in financial markets triggers the Great Recession, the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This dramatically expands the national debt in two ways: First, there is a sharp drop in tax collections. Second, there is a big jump in spending on increased unemployment benefits and other programs to help people weather the downturn. Congress and the Obama administration also approved a major economic stimulus package. Brian Riedl, an economist at the Manhattan Institute, estimates the Bush and Obama administrations together enacted about $2 trillion in emergency measures to respond to the financial crisis and the ensuing recession. Obama-Republican deal to extend Bush tax cuts | Jan. 1, 2013 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating January 2013, when Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. Tax cuts extended $16.8 trillion Total debt when cuts were extended With the Bush tax cuts set to expire amid a sluggish recovery, Obama agrees to make almost all of them permanent, extending tax relief for all but the very richest Americans. Congressional Republicans, in turn, agree to extend some economic stimulus measures. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the deal would cost roughly $4 trillion over 10 years. Trump tax cuts | Dec. 22, 2017 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating December 2017, when President Donald Trump's tax cuts were passed. Tax cuts passed $20.5 trillion Total debt when cuts were enacted President Donald Trump signs a sprawling tax cut bill, centered on a plan to reduce the rate paid by large U.S. corporations from 35 percent to 21 percent. The law also cut taxes for most individual taxpayers. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the measure would cost roughly $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A later analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington think tank, found the cumulative impact of the law could be closer to $2.9 trillion. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Coronavirus emergency response | March 14, 2020 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating March 2020, when the coronavirus emergency was declared. Coronavirus emergency declaration $27.7 trillion Total debt at the start of the pandemic Trump signs into law the first and most expensive of what will eventually be three major relief packages approved by Congress in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The first is a bipartisan $3.4 trillion deal reached in March 2020, with the U.S. economy in a black hole. An additional $900 billion follows in December 2020. In 2021, Democrats under President Biden approve an additional $1.9 trillion with no Republican support. Biden, second Trump term | Aug. 16, 2022 A chart of the national debt from 1995 through 2024, with a line indicating August 2022, when the Inflation Reduction Act passed. Inflation Reduction Act passed $30.9 trillion Total debt when the Inflation Reduction Act is passed Biden successfully pushed Congress to spend more on veterans' health, physical infrastructure and government agencies. Biden's Inflation Reduction Act included some provisions designed to reduce the deficit, such as giving more funding to the Internal Revenue Service, but ultimately did very little to reduce the deficit and may have increased it, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank. Spending agreements between Biden and House Republicans do restrain budget growth slightly. Now, congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are this year moving forward with a plan that would increase federal deficits by more than $2 trillion over the next 10 years — and possibly more than $5 trillion. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
