allegation

CHICAGO — A judge heard testimony Tuesday about overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer” at a Chicago-area building that serves as a key detention spot for people rounded up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Three people who were held at the building in Broadview, just outside Chicago, offered rare public accounts about the conditions there as U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman considers ordering changes at a site that has become a flashpoint for protests and confrontations with federal agents.

“I don’t want anyone else to live what I lived through,” said Felipe Agustin Zamacona, 47, an Amazon driver and Mexican immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for decades.

Zamacona said there were 150 people in a holding cell. Desperate to lie down to sleep, he said he once took the spot of another man who got up to use the toilet.

And the water? Zamacona said he tried to drink from a sink but it “tasted like sewer.”

A lawsuit filed last week accuses the government of denying proper access to food, water and medical care, and coercing people to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges.

“This is not an issue of not getting a toilet or a Fiji water bottle,” attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center told the judge. “These are a set of dire conditions that when taken together paint a harrowing picture.”

Before testimony began, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the allegations were “disgusting.”

“To have to sleep on a floor next to an overflowing toilet — that’s obviously unconstitutional,” he said.

Attorney Jana Brady of the Justice Department acknowledged there are no beds at the Broadview building, just outside Chicago, because it was not intended to be a long-term detention site.

Authorities have “improved the operations” over the past few months, she said, adding there has been a “learning curve.”

“The conditions are not sufficiently serious,” Brady told the judge.

The building has been managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for decades. But amid the Chicago-area crackdown, it has been used to process people for detention or deportation.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who has led the Chicago immigration operation, said criticism was unfounded.

“I think they’re doing a great job out there,” he told the Associated Press during an interview this week.

Testifying with the help of a translator, Pablo Moreno Gonzalez, 56, said he was arrested last week while waiting to start work. Like Zamacona, he said he was placed in a cell with 150 other people, with no beds, blankets, toothbrush or toothpaste.

“It was just really bad. … It was just too much,” Moreno Gonzalez, crying, told the judge.

A third person, Claudia Carolina Pereira Guevara, testified from Honduras, separated from two children who remain in the U.S. She said she was held at Broadview for five days in October and recalled using a garbage bag to clear a clogged toilet.

“They gave us nothing that had to do with cleaning. Absolutely nothing,” Guevara said.

For months advocates have raised concerns about conditions at Broadview, which has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress, political candidates and activist groups. Lawyers and relatives of people held there have called it a de facto detention center, saying up to 200 people have been held at a time without access to legal counsel.

The Broadview center has also drawn demonstrations, leading to the arrests of numerous protesters. The demonstrations are at the center of a separate lawsuit from a coalition of news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents violated their First Amendment rights by repeatedly using tear gas and other weapons on them.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

As the trial about whether the Angels should be held at least partially liable for the death of Tyler Skaggs enters its third week, major league officials are closely monitoring the proceedings.

The trial is scheduled to last several more weeks, and it would be premature for the league to determine what action it might take against the Angels — if any — until all evidence is revealed in court and a verdict or a settlement is reached.

However, it is considered highly unlikely that the league would compel Angels owner Arte Moreno to sell the team.

Consideration of any action probably would be deferred until the league could conduct its own investigation and until a jury verdict, if there is one, is fully reviewed by an appeals court.

The Skaggs family is seeking $785 million in damages, as first reported by the Athletic, based on the allegation the Angels knew or should have known that former staffer Eric Kay was using illegal drugs, including the pills he provided to Skaggs on the night the pitcher died in 2019. The Angels deny the allegations.

The jury would not have to decide whether to award all of that money or none of it. The jury first would have to determine who was liable: the Angels, Kay, Skaggs and any other parties. Then the jury would decide what percentage of liability each of those parties should assume and what the financial compensation should be.

As an example, a jury could decide the damages should be $210 million — the amount the family listed as a minimum in a court filing — and the Angels should be held one-third responsible. Under that example, they would be assessed $70 million.

In 1943, Philadelphia Phillies owner William Cox was banned for life for betting on baseball.

If history is any indication, if the league believes an owner merits discipline, an owner would be more likely to be suspended than banned. In 1993, Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott was suspended one year for racist and insensitive comments.

New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner was suspended three times: two years for illegal contributions to President Nixon’s 1972 campaign; one week after publicly criticizing umpires; and two years and five months for paying a gambler to dig up disparaging information on All-Star outfielder Dave Winfield. That last suspension originally was announced as a lifetime ban; Steinbrenner was later reinstated.

Kay, who provided Skaggs with counterfeit oxycodone pills that were laced with fentanyl, is serving a 22-year sentence in federal prison. Skaggs died in his hotel room in Texas of asphyxiation, according to an autopsy, choking on his own vomit while under the influence of oxycodone, fentanyl and alcohol.

Los Angeles County is poised to pay out an additional $828 million to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children, months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The award, posted on the county claims board agenda Friday, would resolve an additional 414 cases that were not included in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved this spring. Both the supervisors and the county claims board will need to vote on the payout before it is finalized.

The record $4-billion settlement covered more than 11,000 people, who say they were abused inside county-run juvenile facilities and foster homes as children. The individual payouts will range from $100,000 to $3 million.

The newest payout would break down to an average of roughly $2 million per person. It involves cases from three prominent law firms: Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, and Panish Shea Ravipudi.

The firms declined to comment on the potential settlement until the vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The announcement follows reporting by The Times that found nine plaintiffs who say they were paid by recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse. Four of them have said they were explicitly told to make up claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA.

The firm has denied any involvement with recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs to sue. DTLA said previously it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and is conducting new screenings to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

The county said any claims brought by DTLA will undergo an additional level of review before payments are made, citing reporting by The Times. The extra screening “may require plaintiff interviews and additional proof of allegations,” the county said.

DTLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group’s offices in Los Angeles.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who recently launched an investigation into the $4-billion settlement following The Times’ reporting, said the vetting will ensure “money goes only to the true victims of abuse.”

“Our settlements balance our obligation to compensate victims and treat their experiences with compassion with the need to put strong protections in place to protect taxpayers from fraud,” she said.

County Counsel Dawyn Harrison says she wants to see the law changed so “unscrupulous lawyers don’t get windfalls at the expense of survivors of abuse.”

“The conduct alleged to have occurred by the DTLA firm is absolutely outrageous and must be investigated by the appropriate authorities,” said Harrison. “Not only does it undermine our justice system, it also deprives legitimate claimants of just compensation.”

All cases will be reviewed by retired judges before the money is allocated, the county said.

If a judge believes a claim is fraudulent, the plaintiff will not get any money, the county said Friday. The county’s original plan stated that if the county found a fraudulent claim, the plaintiff could be offered $50,000 to resolve it or remove the case from the settlement so that it could be litigated separately.

The flood of claims was unleashed with the passage of Assembly Bill 218 in 2020, which changed the statute of limitations and gave survivors a new window to sue their abusers. Since then, school districts and governments have faced many decades-old claims, for which they say there are no longer records kept on file to allow for vetting.

Dominique Anderson, pictured above around age 11, is among the plaintiffs who sued the county for alleged sexual abuse and would stand to receive payouts as part of a new settlement announced Friday.

(Courtesy of Dominique Anderson)

County supervisors have been increasingly critical of the law, which they argue has left them defenseless against claims dating back to the 1950s. If the supervisors approve the new settlement, the county will have paid out nearly $5 billion in child sex abuse lawsuits this year — with more to come.

The county is still facing an additional 2,500 cases, which they say will further strain the region’s social safety net. The county recently required most departments trim their budgets to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

“L.A. County and other local governments must balance their obligations to past victims with the need to avoid ruinous financial impacts,” said acting Chief Executive Joe Nicchitta.

ROME — The Vatican took the unusual step on Monday of announcing that it had named judges to decide the fate of a famous ex-Jesuit artist, whose mosaics decorate basilicas around the world and who was accused by more than two dozen women of sexual, spiritual and psychological abuse.

The case of the Rev. Marko Ivan Rupnik badly tarnished the legacy of Pope Francis, given suggestions that the Jesuit pope, the Jesuit religious order and the Jesuit-headed Vatican sex abuse office protected one of their own over decades by dismissing allegations of misconduct against him.

The Vatican office that manages clergy sex abuse cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that the five judges named to hear the Rupnik case in a canonical court include women and priests who don’t hold jobs in the Vatican bureaucracy.

It said that such a composition was “done in order to better guarantee, as in any judicial process, the autonomy and independence of the aforementioned court.”

The statement suggested an implicit recognition that prior to now, the Vatican’s handling of the Rupnik file had been anything but autonomous or independent.

Famous artist accused

Rupnik’s mosaics grace some of the Catholic Church’s most-visited shrines and sanctuaries around the world, including at the shrine in Lourdes, France, in the Vatican, a new basilica in Aparecida, Brazil, and the chapel of Pope Leo XIV’s own Augustinian religious order in Rome.

The Rupnik scandal first exploded publicly in late 2022 when Italian blogs started reporting the claims of nuns and other women who said they had been sexually, spiritually and psychologically abused by him, including during the production of his artwork.

Rupnik’s Jesuit religious order soon admitted that he had been excommunicated briefly in 2020 for having committed one of the Catholic Church’s most serious crimes — using the confessional to absolve a woman with whom he had engaged in sexual activity. But he continued working and preaching.

The case continued to create problems for the Jesuits and Francis, though, since more women came forward saying they too had been victimized by Rupnik, with some of their claims dating back to the 1990s.

The Jesuits eventually kicked him out of the order after he refused to respond to allegations by about 20 women, most of whom were members of a Jesuit-inspired religious community that he co-founded in his native Slovenia, which has since been suppressed.

The Vatican initially refused to prosecute, arguing the women’s claims were too old. The stall exposed both the Vatican’s legal shortcomings, where sex crimes against women are rarely prosecuted, and the suggestion that a famous artist like Rupnik had received favorable treatment.

Trial about to start

While Francis denied interfering in a 2023 interview with the Associated Press, he eventually caved to public pressure and waived the statute of limitations so that the Vatican could open a proper canonical trial.

Two years later, the Vatican statement on Monday indicated that the trial was about to start. The judges, appointed on Oct. 9, will use the church’s in-house canon law to determine Rupnik’s fate, though it’s still not even clear what alleged canonical crimes he is accused of committing. The Vatican statement didn’t say. He hasn’t been charged criminally.

To date, Rupnik hasn’t responded publicly to the allegations and refused to respond to his Jesuit superiors during their investigation. His supporters at his Centro Aletti art studio have denounced what they have called a media “lynching.”

Some of Rupnik’s victims have gone public to demand justice, including in a documentary “Nuns vs. The Vatican” that premiered last month at the Toronto International Film Festival. They welcomed word on Monday that the trial would finally start, attorney Laura Sgro said.

“My five clients requested 18 months ago to be recognized as injured parties in the proceedings, so we hope that their position will be established as soon as possible,” Sgro said in a statement. “They have been waiting for justice for too many years, and justice will be good not only for them but also for the church itself.”

The Catholic Church’s internal legal system doesn’t recognize victims of abuse as parties to a canonical trial but merely third-party witnesses. Victims have no right to participate in any proceedings or have access to any documentation.

At most, they are entitled to learn the judges’ verdict. Unlike a regular court, where jail time is possible, canonical penalties can include sanctions such as restrictions from celebrating Mass or even presenting oneself as a priest, if the judges determine a canonical crime has occurred.

Legal hurdles to justice

But it’s not even clear whether the Vatican considers the women to be abuse “victims” in a legal sense. While the Holy See over the last 25 years has refined the canonical rules to prosecute priests who sexually abuse minors, it has rarely prosecuted sex-related abuse cases involving women, contending that any sexual activity between adults is consensual.

The Rupnik case, though, also involves allegations of spiritual and psychological abuse in relations where there was an imbalance of power. It’s one of many such #MeToo cases in the church where women have said they fell prey to revered spiritual gurus who used their power and authority to manipulate them for sexual and other ends.

The Vatican, though, has generally refused to prosecute such cases or address this type of abuse in any canonical revisions, though Francis authorized a study group to look into allegations of “false mysticism” before he died.

Leo has expressed concern in general that accused priests receive due process. But he had firsthand experience dealing with an abusive group in Peru that targeted adults as well as minors, including through spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience.

In a letter earlier this year to a Peruvian journalist who exposed the group’s crimes, Leo called for a culture of prevention in the church “that does not tolerate any form of abuse — whether of power or authority, conscience or spiritual, or sexual.”

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

A military unit in Madagascar says it is taking control of the country’s security forces as President Andry Rajoelina alleged an “attempt to seize power illegally” was under way.

The CAPSAT contingent, based in the Soanierana district on the outskirts of the capital, Antananarivo, joined thousands of antigovernment demonstrators on Saturday, calling on security forces to “refuse orders to shoot” and condemning police action taken to quell more than two weeks of youth-led protests that have rocked the Indian Ocean island.

The demonstration in the capital, Antananarivo, was one of the largest since the protest movement erupted on September 25, sparked by anger over power and water shortages.

Police used stun grenades and tear gas in attempts to disperse the crowds of several thousand people. Few left as soldiers from the CAPSAT contingent of administrative and technical officers entered the city in army vehicles to join the demonstrators.

They were greeted with cheers from protesters, who called out, “Thank you!” to the uniformed soldiers, some waving Madagascar flags.

On Sunday, Rajoelina released a statement saying: “An attempt to seize power illegally and by force, contrary to the Constitution and to democratic principles, is currently under way.”

“Dialogue is the only way forward and the only solution to the crisis currently facing the country,” he said while calling for unity.

Madagascar is one of the world’s poorest countries and has experienced frequent popular uprisings since its independence from France in 1960.

Faced with near-daily protests since September 25, Rajoelina dismissed his government on September 30 and appointed an army general as prime minister, but the move failed to quell the uprising.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday put off a decision on whether President Trump can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and said it would hear arguments on the case in January.

The court’s action allows Cook to remain in her position, and it prevents Trump from taking majority control of the historically independent central bank board.

Last month, the president said he fired Cook “for cause,” citing mortgage documents she signed in 2021 confirming that two different properties were her primary residence.

But the flap over her mortgages arose as Trump complained that the Federal Reserve Board, including Cook, had not lowered interest rates to his satisfaction.

“We will have a majority very shortly,” Trump said after he fired Cook.

In September, Trump appointed Stephen Miran, the chair of of his White House Council of Economic Advisers, to serve a temporary term on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board. He joined two other Trump appointees.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook to a temporary term in 2022 and to a full term a year later.

In August, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, he said she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Mortgage lenders usually offer a lower interest rate for a borrower’s primary residence.

Cook has not directly refuted the allegation about her mortgage documents, but her attorneys said she told the lender she was seeking the Atlanta condo as a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25 that said, “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook refused to step down and filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegation did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest it.

A federal judge in Washington agreed and blocked her firing, noting that unproven allegation of mortgage fraud occurred before she was appointed to the Federal Reserve.

In a 2-1 vote, the appeals court also refused to uphold her firing.

Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Sept. 18 arguing Congress gave the president the authority to fire a Fed governor he concludes she is not trustworthy.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” wrote Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

But the justices refused to act on an emergency appeal and decided they will give the case a full hearing and a written decision.

WASHINGTON — President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from the independent board that can raise or lower interest rates.

The appeal “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

The appeal is the second this month asking the court to give Trump broad new power over the economy.

The first, to be heard in November, will decide if the president to free to impose large import taxes on products coming into this country.

The new case could determine if he is free to remake the Federal Reserve Board by removing a Democratic appointee who he says may have broken the law.

Trump’s lawyers argue that a Fed governor has no legal right to challenge the president’s decision to fire her.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself—and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Trump has chafed at the Federal Reserve board for keeping interest rates high to fight inflation, and he threatened to fire board chairman Jay Powell, even though he appointed him to that post in 2018.

But last month, Trump turned his attention to Cook and said he had cause to fire her.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook in 2023 and she was confirmed to a full term.

In August, however, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Typically, borrowers obtain a better interest rate for a primary residence. But lawyers say charges of mortgage fraud are extremely rare if the borrower makes the required regular payments on the loan.

About 30 minutes after Pulte posted his allegations, Trump posted on his social media site: “Cook must resign. Now!!!”

Cook has not responded directly to the allegations, but her attorneys pointed to news reports which said she told the lender her Atlanta condo would be a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25. “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referrral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegations did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest the charges.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, agreed she made a “strong showing” the firing was illegal and blocked her removal.

She said Congress wrote the “for cause” provision to punish “malfeasance in office,” not conduct that pre-dated her appointment. She also said Cook had been denied “due process of law” because she was not given a hearing.

The U.S. appeals court in Washington, by a 2-1 vote, refused to lift her order on Monday.

Judges Bradley Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, said Cook had been denied “even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed.”

Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said “for cause” removal provision was broader than misconduct in office. It means the president may remove an officer for “some cause relating to” their “ability, fitness, or competence” to hold the office, he said.

And because a government position is not the property of office holders, they do not have a “due process” right to contest their firing, he said.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver on Wednesday pulled back the reins as allegations swirled about the Clippers circumventing the salary cap by orchestrating an endorsement deal for star forward Kawhi Leonard.

Silver, speaking to the media after a previously scheduled meeting of all 30 team owners in New York, said an NBA investigation would need to uncover clear evidence that the Clippers violated rules for owner Steve Ballmer to be punished.

“The burden is on the league if we are going to discipline a team, an owner, a player or any constituent members of the league,” Silver said. “I think, as with any process that requires a fundamental sense of fairness, the burden should be on the party that is, in essence, bringing those charges. …

“I think as a matter of fundamental fairness, I would be reluctant to act if there was sort of a mere appearance of impropriety.”

The Clippers and Ballmer are under league investigation after it was alleged last week on the podcast of Pablo Torre that Leonard was paid $28 million for a do-nothing endorsement role by Aspiration, a sustainability firm that had agreed to a $330-million sponsorship deal with the Clippers and had offered $1 billion for naming rights to the arena that instead became the Intuit Dome.

Aspiration turned out to be a fraudulent company, and co-founder Joseph Sanberg has agreed to plead guilty to defrauding multiple investors and lenders.

Silver said he would hesitate to take action against the Clippers if even a shred of doubt about the situation remains following the investigation, which will be conducted by a law firm experienced in probing wrongdoing by sports franchises, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz.

“Bringing in a firm that specializes in internal investigations adds a level of expertise and creates separation between the league and the investigation of a team,” said Michael McCann, a sports law expert and a visiting professor at Harvard. “The investigators have a background in prosecutorial work, insight into what documents to request and questions to ask.”

McCann and other legal experts said the investigation would center on whether Ballmer’s $50-million investment into Aspiration was a quid pro quo for the firm to turn around and give Leonard $28 million in cash and $20 million in Aspiration stock to essentially do nothing.

Ballmer is embarrassed by the allegations and about his apparent infatuation with Aspiration — which entered into a $330-million sponsorship arrangement with the Clippers and was nearly awarded naming rights to what became the Intuit Dome, only to be revealed as a fraudulent company run by scam artists.

McCann said the investigation would need to uncover concrete evidence that Ballmer or someone else representing the Clippers directed Aspiration to make the deal with Leonard. The only evidence presented on Torre’s podcast was hearsay — an audio clip of an anonymous former Aspiration employee saying that someone else in the company told them the endorsement deal “was to circumvent the salary cap, LOL. There was lots of LOL when things were shared.”

LOL typically is used in written communication, so if the allegation was made in an email or text, the next step for investigators would be to interview the person who wrote it and determine whether Ballmer was involved.

The investigation presumably will examine all of this. Silver tends to be methodical when conducting a probe and is expected to act on what can be proved, not on the perception of wrongdoing. But he also is charged with protecting and growing franchise values. Anything that could damage the integrity of the league would be a huge concern to him and team owners.

“Silver has quite a few very interesting relationships to protect and to nurture: other owners, his corporate sponsors, the media networks that are distributing the content,” said David Carter, a USC professor of sports business and principal of the Sports Business Group. “Everybody attached to the league is interested in getting to the bottom of this. So he has to balance different stakeholder interests and he is very good at doing that.

“So I have a feeling he will — working with the law firm — get to the bottom of it and then decide to what extent if any punishment is warranted. He’ll do that with the intent of making sure he’s protecting the interests of the other owners.”

Leonard joined the Clippers in July 2019 on a three-year, $103-million contract after leading the Toronto Raptors to the NBA title. The 6-foot-7 forward from Moreno Valley signed a four-year, $176.3-million extension in 2021, when Aspiration made its sponsorship deal with the Clippers and Ballmer invested and became a minority owner in the company.

After signing a three-year, $153-million extension a year ago, Leonard will have been paid or is under contract for $375 million in career salary over 14 years with three teams.

The NBA looked into allegations that the Clippers paid Leonard or his representative and uncle, Dennis Robertson, a side deal when he first joined the team in 2019. No wrongdoing was found, although this week the Toronto Star reported that Robertson made demands of the Raptors in 2019 “that line up almost perfectly with what Leonard reportedly got from Aspiration.”

The Star reported that Robertson demanded $10 million a year in sponsorship income but that Leonard didn’t want to do anything for the money. The Raptors rejected the demand, and Leonard signed with the Clippers.

Should the Clippers be found guilty of circumventing the salary cap, they could be forced to forfeit draft picks and be fined heavily. Ballmer and other team executives could be suspended, and perhaps Leonard’s contract could be voided.

Silver will proceed carefully.

“The goal of a full investigation is to find out if there really was impropriety,” he said. “In a public-facing sport, the public at times reaches conclusions that later turn out to be completely false. I’d want anyone else in the situation Mr. Ballmer is in now, or Kawhi Leonard for that matter, to be treated the same way I would want to be treated if people were making allegations against me.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Wednesday appealed a ruling blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook as he seeks more control over the traditionally independent board.

The notice of appeal came hours after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb handed down the ruling. The White House has insisted Trump, a Republican, has the right to fire Cook over over allegations raised by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she bought before she joined the Fed.

The case could soon reach the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has allowed Trump to fire several board members of other independent agencies but has suggested that power has limitations at the Federal Reserve.

Cook’s lawyers have argued that firing her was unlawful because presidents can only fire Fed governors for cause, which has typically meant poor job performance or misconduct. The judge found the president’s removal power is limited to actions taken during a governor’s time in office.

Cook is accused of saying that both her properties, in Michigan and Georgia, were primary residences, which could have resulted in lower down payments and mortgage rates. Her lawsuit denied the allegations without providing details. Her attorneys said she should have gotten a chance to respond to them before getting fired.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting the short-term interest rate the Fed controls more quickly. If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board.

No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials can.

Cook is set to participate in a Fed meeting next week. The meeting is expected to reduce its key short-term rate by a quarter-point to between 4% and 4.25%.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Three days after President Trump publicly accused Sen. Adam Schiff of committing mortgage fraud, an attorney for Schiff wrote privately to the Department of Justice that there was “no factual basis” for the claims — but “ample basis” to launch an investigation into Bill Pulte, the Trump administration official digging into the mortgage records of the president’s most prominent political opponents.

“We are disturbed by the highly irregular, partisan process that led to these baseless accusations; the purposeful, coordinated public disclosure of these materials containing confidential personal information, without regard to the security risks posed to the Senator and his family; and Mr. Pulte’s role in this sordid effort,” attorney Preet Bharara wrote in the July 18 letter reviewed by The Times.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, where Pulte serves as director, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

A Justice Department spokesperson said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has directed Ed Martin — a Trump loyalist and director of the department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — to “commence a probe” into criminal referrals from the housing agency, and Martin “will make public statements regarding the matter when appropriate.”

Trump previously nominated Martin — a Missouri lawyer and conservative activist with no prosecutorial experience — to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. However, Schiff, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placed a hold on Martin’s nomination, and it was ultimately withdrawn amid a lack of support from Republican senators.

Bharara outlined several reasons why he believed the president’s allegations against Schiff are without merit, and attached a copy of a letter from Schiff to the mortgage lender on his home near Washington, D.C, that Bharara said proved Schiff had been “completely transparent” about listing both that home and a unit in his home district in Burbank as primary residences in mortgage documents.

Schiff’s simultaneous designation of two different homes as primary residences was the basis for Trump’s allegations and for Pulte’s referral of the matter to the Justice Department for criminal review.

Bharara blasted Pulte as “a Presidential appointee who seems to have made it his mission to misuse the power of his office to manufacture allegations of criminal conduct against the President’s perceived political adversaries,” and advised top Justice Department officials to not become complicit in such a politically motivated campaign.

“You should decline Mr. Pulte’s invitation to join his retaliatory harassment of Senator Schiff,” Bharara wrote to Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Instead, Mr. Pulte’s misuse of his position should be investigated by a nonpartisan Inspector General to determine whether Mr. Pulte’s conduct should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.”

Democrats have questioned the legality of Pulte’s probes into several of Trump’s political opponents, including Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump; New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who has led investigations into and lawsuits against the president; and Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor who has voted to maintain federal interest rates rather than reduce them as Trump has demanded.

Pulte has lodged different allegations against each, but at their core is the claim that they all misrepresented facts in mortgage documents to secure favorable tax or loan terms, including by listing more than one home as their primary residence at the same time.

Trump cited the claims against Cook as reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which she is challenging in court. Critics have condemned the move as a partisan attack designed to allow Trump to wrest control of the economy away from the independent Federal Reserve.

Pulte has downplayed or ignored reporting by ProPublica that several of Trump’s own Cabinet members have made similar housing claims in mortgage and other financial paperwork, and reporting by Reuters that Pulte’s father and stepmother have done so as well. Additional Reuters reporting on eight years of court data found that the federal government has only rarely brought criminal charges over misstatements about primary residence in mortgage records.

With Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, Trump alleged that he intentionally misled lenders about his primary residence being in Potomac, Md., rather than in California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.” Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

California Sen. Adam Schiff’s lawyer wrote a letter to the Department of Justice saying there was “no factual basis” for President Trump’s accusations that Schiff had committed mortgage fraud.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

A memorandum from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte, previously reported by The Times, noted that investigators had been asked by the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they had concluded that Schiff and his wife “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020 by simultaneously identifying both the Potomac home and the Burbank unit as their primary residence. The investigators didn’t say they had concluded a crime had been committed.

Schiff has publicly dismissed Trump’s allegations as baseless, accusing the president of making mortgage fraud claims “his weapon of choice to attack people standing in his way and people standing up to him, like me.” Bharara’s letter outlined his defense in more detail.

Part of that defense was the letter Bharara said Schiff sent to his lender on his Maryland home, Quicken Loans, a copy of which was provided to the Justice Department and reviewed by The Times.

In that letter, which he sent during a 2010 refinancing, Schiff wrote that while California was his “principal legal residence” and where he paid taxes, he had been informed both by counsel for the lender and for the House Administration Committee that the Maryland home “may be considered a primary residence for insurance underwriting purposes” because members of his family lived in it for most of the year.

Bharara called the letter a “transparent disclosure” and “the antithesis of ‘mortgage misrepresentation.’”

Schiff has previously said that neither of the homes were vacation or investment properties and were classified correctly, both in accordance with how they were used by his family and in consultation with House attorneys and his lenders.

Another part of Schiff’s defense, Bharara wrote, was that even if he had committed fraud by making false statements in his mortgage filings — which Bharara said he did not — the 10-year statute of limitations for charging him has lapsed, as the “most recent mortgage application that Mr. Pulte even accuses of inaccuracy is more than twelve years old.”

Bharara also laid out several reasons why he felt that Pulte’s actions deserve to be investigated.

Bharara asserted that the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general appeared to have asked the Fannie Mae Financial Crimes Investigation Unit to delve into Schiff’s mortgage records “at Mr. Pulte’s behest,” and that Pulte personally referred the matter to the Justice Department in May, before the Fannie Mae unit had even provided him with its findings.

He also wrote that the criminal referral was made public “as the President sought to distract from criticism related to [convicted sex offender] Jeffery Epstein.”

Schiff’s address was published as a result, which Bharara said presented a threat to the senator and forced him to take “extra security precautions.” Schiff also has launched a legal defense fund to help him defend himself against the president’s accusations.

Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in New York, described Pulte’s actions as “highly irregular,” and part of a “pattern” of him “misusing his office” to go after Trump’s political opponents.

“Opening an investigation on these deficient facts, after this much time has passed, after such an irregular and suspect process, and when the President has repeatedly expressed his longtime desire to investigate and imprison Senator Schiff, would be a deeply partisan and unjust act, unworthy of the Department of Justice,” Bharara wrote. “Instead, it is Mr. Pulte’s conduct that should be investigated.”

Exposing years-old concerns about California’s resilience to wildfires, a government whistleblower and other witnesses in a recent state trial alleged that cleanup operations after some of the largest fires in state history were plagued by mismanagement and overspending — and that toxic contamination was at times left behind in local communities.

Steven Larson, a former state debris operations manager in the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, failed to convince a jury that he was wrongly fired by the agency for flagging those and other issues to his supervisors. After a three-week trial in Sacramento, the jury found Larson was retaliated against, but also that the agency had other, legitimate reasons for dismissing him from his post, according to court records.

Still, the little-discussed trial provided a rare window into a billion-dollar public-private industry that is rapidly expanding — and becoming increasingly expensive for taxpayers and lucrative for contractors — given the increased threat of fires from climate change.

It raised serious questions about the state’s fire response and management capabilities at a time when the Trump administration says it is aggressively searching for “waste, fraud and abuse” in government spending, proposing cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and clashing with state leaders over the best way to respond to future wildfires in California.

The allegations raised in the trial also come as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers are overseeing similar debris removal work — by some of the same contractors — following the wildfires that destroyed much of Pacific Palisades and parts of Altadena in January, and as fresh complaints arise around that work, as The Times recently reported.

Steve Larson poses for a portrait at Elk Grove Park on Sept. 1. Larson, who was a former state debris operations manager in the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, is a whistleblower alleging widespread problems in California fire cleanups.

(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)

During the trial, Larson and other witnesses with direct knowledge of state fire contracts raised allegations of poor oversight and sloppy hiring and purchasing practices by CalRecycle, the state agency that oversaw multiple major cleanup contracts for CalOES; overcharging and poor record-keeping by contractors; toxic contamination being left behind on properties meant to have been cleared; and insufficient responses to those problems from both CalOES and FEMA officials.

The claims were buttressed at trial by the introduction into evidence of a previously unpublished audit of cleanup operations for several large fires in 2018. They were mostly rejected by attorneys for the state, who acknowledged some problems — which they said are common in fast-paced emergency responses operations. They broadly denied Larson’s allegations as baseless, saying he was an inexperienced and disgruntled former employee who was fired for poor performance.

The allegations were also dismissed by CalOES and by Burlingame-based Environmental Chemical Corp., which was the state’s lead contractor on the 2018 fires and is now the Army Corps of Engineer’s lead contractor on cleanup work for the Palisades and Eaton fires, which is nearing completion.

Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for CalOES, defended the agency’s work in a statement to The Times. While acknowledging some problems in the past, she said the agency is “committed to protecting the health and safety of all Californians, including in the aftermath of disasters, and is unwavering in its desire to maintain a safe and inclusive workplace where everyone can feel respected and thrive.”

In its own statement to The Times, ECC said it followed the directives and oversight of state and federal agencies at all times, and “is proud of its work helping communities recover from devastating disasters.”

“We approach each project with professionalism, transparency, and a commitment to delivering results under extraordinarily challenging conditions,” the company said.

Maria Bourn, one of Larson’s attorneys, told The Times that while her client lost at trial — which they are appealing — his case marked a “win for government accountability and the public at-large” by revealing “massive irregularities by wildfire debris removal contractors” who continue to work in the state.

“The state’s continued partnership with these companies when such widespread irregularities were identified by one of its own should alarm every taxpayer,” Bourn said.

A Malibu home lies in ruins after the Woolsey fire. Many questions were raised about the response.

(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

Camp, Woolsey and Hill fires

The allegations centered in large part around the state-run cleanup efforts following the Camp fire in Northern California, which killed 85 people and all but erased the town of Paradise in November 2018, and the contemporaneous Woolsey and Hill fires in Southern California, which ripped through Malibu and other parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

FEMA has reimbursed the state more than $1 billion for costs associated with those cleanup efforts.

In a July 28, 2019, email entered as evidence in the trial, Larson wrote to CalOES chief of internal audits Ralph Zavala that he wanted to talk to him about “potential fraud” by Camp fire contractors, including ECC.

“I cannot say for sure, but something sure smells fishy,” Larson wrote in the email. “Either their contract was not in fact the lowest bid or they are creating fraud in the way they collect debris.”

Larson wrote in the same email that ECC was “supposedly the lowest bidder” but was “costing more” than the lower bids, which he wrote “doesn’t make sense.” At trial, Larson and his attorneys repeatedly claimed that instead of properly investigating his claims, his supervisors turned against him.

Other current and former state officials testified that they had raised similar concerns.

Todd Thalhamer, a former Camp fire area commander and operations chief who still works for CalRecycle, testified during the trial that he’d told Larson he believed ECC had low-balled its bid to win the work, then overcharged the state by millions of dollars. He said he had “dug very deep into the tonnage cost that they were charging, how they were charging, how they were cleaning it up,” and believed that ECC had been able to “game the system” by reporting that it was hauling out more of the debris types for which it could charge the most.

ECC denied manipulating bids or overcharging the state, and said that “all debris types and volumes are 100% inspected by and determined by CalRecycle and its monitoring representatives and systems, not by ECC or its subcontractors.”

Thalhamer testified that he’d sent an “email blast” out to top CalOES and CalRecycle officials telling them of his findings. He said that led to internal discussions and some but not all issues being resolved.

Further concerns were raised in records obtained by Larson’s attorneys from the prominent accounting firm EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young, which the state paid nearly $4 million to audit the Camp, Woolsey and Hill fire cleanup work.

According to those records, which were cited at trial, EY found that CalRecycle was “unable to produce documentation that fully supports how the proposed costs were determined to be reasonable when evaluating contractor proposals,” and didn’t appear to have “appropriate controls or oversight over the contractor’s performance.”

EY flagged $457 million charged by the contractors through 89 separate “change orders” — or additional charges not contemplated in their initial bids. It said the state lacked an adequate approval process for determining whether to accept such orders, couldn’t substantiate them and risked FEMA rescinding its funding if it didn’t take “immediate corrective action.”

EY specifically flagged $181 million in change orders for the construction of two “base camps” near the burn areas, from which the contractors would operate. It said the state only had invoices for $91 million of that spending, and that even those invoices were not itemized. EY executive Jill Powell testified that the firm believed such large contract changes were likely to be flagged as questionable by FEMA.

ECC — one of two contractors EY noted as having made the base camp change orders — defended its work.

The company said change orders are a necessary part of any cleanup operation, where the final cost “depends on the final quantities of debris that the Government directs the Contractors to remove and how far the material has to be transported for recycling or disposal.”

Such quantities can change over the course of a contract, which leads to changes in cost, it said.

As for the base camps, ECC said the state had explicitly stated in its initial request for proposals that it would “develop the requirements” and negotiate their cost through change orders, because details about their likely location and size were still being worked out when the bids were being accepted.

“Bidders could not know at the time of bid, which area of Paradise they would be assigned, how many properties would be assigned to the bidder, and therefore the exact size of the workforce that the Government would want housed in a Base Camp,” ECC said.

ECC said it “submitted invoices with supporting documentation in the format requested” by CalRecycle for all expenditures, and was “not aware of any missing invoices.”

“We cannot speak to what EY was provided from the State’s files or how the State provided those materials for EY’s review,” the company said. “Any gap in what EY reviewed should not be interpreted as meaning ECC failed to submit documentation.”

ECC said state officials only ever complimented the company for its work on the 2018 fires. And it said it continues to work in Southern California “with the same professionalism and care we bring to every project.”

SPSG, the second contractor EY flagged as being involved in the base camp change orders, did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorney James F. Curran, who represented the state at trial, said in his closing arguments that the work was not “running perfect” but was coming in on schedule and under budget. He said state officials were not ignoring problems, just cataloging non-pressing issues in order to address them when the dust cleared, as is common in emergency operations.

Curran said many of Larson’s complaints were based on his unfamiliarity with such work and his refusal to trust more experienced colleagues. He said Larson was fired not for flagging concerns, but because of “misconduct, arrogance, communication style problems, and performance problems.”

Gore, the CalOES spokeswoman, said CalRecycle awarded the contracts “through an open, competitive procurement process with oversight from CalOES and FEMA,” and that CalOES worked to address problems with contractors before Larson ever voiced any concerns.

Gore said CalOES hired EY to identify any potential improvements in the contracting and reimbursement process, and changed its policy to pay contractors per parcel of land cleared rather than by volume of debris removed in part to address concerns about potential load manipulation.

She said the agency could not answer other, detailed questions from The Times about the debris removal process and concerns about mismanagement and alleged overcharging because the Larson case “remains pending and subject to appeal,” and because CalOES faces “other, active litigation” as well.

The EY audit also flagged issues with several other contractors, including Tetra Tech and Arcadis, according to draft records obtained from EY by Larson’s attorneys and submitted as evidence at trial.

The EY records said Tetra Tech filed time sheets for unapproved costs, without sufficient supporting information, with questionable or excessive hours, with digital alterations that increased hourly rates, and without proper supervisor approvals. It said it also charged for work without providing any supporting time sheets.

The EY records said the company also used inconsistent procedures for sampling soil and testing for asbestos, used billing rates that were inconsistent between its contract and its invoices, charged for “after hours” work without supporting documentation, filed questionable, per-hour lodging costs, appeared to have digitally edited change orders after they were signed and dated, and relied inappropriately on questionable digital signatures for approving change orders.

Tetra Tech did not respond to a request for comment.

The EY records said Arcadis filed change orders for costs that appeared to be part of the “normal course of business,” filed invoices for work that began before the company’s state contract was signed, and relied inappropriately on digital signatures.

Arcadis referred all questions to CalRecycle. CalRecycle provided a copy of its own “targeted” audit of Arcadis’ work, which found the company had complied with the requirements of its nearly $29-million contract with the state. CalRecycle otherwise referred The Times back to CalOES.

A recovery team searches for human remains after the Camp fire.

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

North Bay fires

Concerns about cleanup work following major fires in Sonoma, Santa Rosa and other North Bay counties in 2017 — under both CalOES and the Army Corps of Engineers — also arose at the trial.

Sean Smith, a former 20-year veteran of CalOES and a prominent figure in California debris removal operations to this day, alleged in an email submitted at trial that ECC and other contractors hired to clear contaminated debris and soil from those fires over-excavated sites in order “to boost loads to get more tonnage and money.”

ECC denied Smith’s claims, saying it “does not perform excessive soil removal” and that it followed “the detailed debris removal operations plan requirements” of the Army Corps of Engineers, which had its own quality assurance representatives monitoring the work.

In a deposition, Smith also testified that, in the midst of spending more than $50 million to repair that over-excavation, state officials identified lingering contamination at “what would be considered hazardous waste levels.”

“They hadn’t finished the cleanup in all spots, and we found it, and we recorded it,” he said.

Smith testified that those findings were presented to high-ranking CalOES and FEMA officials during a meeting in San Francisco in October 2018. At that meeting, CalOES regional manager Eric Lamoureux laid out all the state’s contamination findings in detail, “but nobody wanted to hear it,” Smith said.

During his deposition, Smith alleged that the “exact words” of one FEMA attorney in attendance were, “We have to find out how to debunk the state’s testing” — which he said he found surprising, given the testing was based on federal environmental standards.

“I don’t know how you’d debunk such a thing,” Smith said.

FEMA officials did not respond to requests for comment. CalOES also did not answer questions about the alleged meeting.

ECC said that Smith, who managed and signed its contracts with CalOES, gave ECC “a very positive performance review” when it completed the Sonoma and Santa Rosa work — describing its work as “exceptional.”

Smith said he quit his post working on those fires after the San Francisco meeting, though he continued working for the agency in other roles for a couple more years. Smith more recently formed his own debris removal consulting firm — which has been involved in soil testing for the state after other recent fires.

CalOES did not respond to questions about Smith’s claims or separation from the agency.

A federal judge has rejected Newsmax’s lawsuit alleging Fox News violated U.S. antitrust laws by squeezing out rival conservative news networks.

The court’s decision came two days after the case was filed.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon said she would give Newsmax a do-over. The Boca Raton, Fla.-based network has until Thursday to refile its lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s media company and top-rated cable news network to comply with judicial style.

In her two-page ruling on Friday, Cannon said Newsmax’s lawyers inappropriately tried to build their case by stringing together allegations to compound their effect.

“We understand this is just a technical matter and our law firm is refiling,” Newsmax said in a statement.

Newsmax sued Fox News and its parent Fox Corp. on Wednesday, accusing Murdoch’s television company of anticompetitive behavior to maintain its “unlawful monopolization of the right-leaning pay TV news market.”

Lawyers for Newsmax alleged Fox used its market clout to discourage pay-TV distributors from carrying or promoting Newsmax and other rival conservative news outlets. Newsmax claimed Fox News resorts to intimidation campaigns, including by pressuring guests not to appear on Newsmax.

“But for Fox’s anticompetitive behavior, Newsmax would have achieved greater pay TV distribution, seen its audience and ratings grow sooner, gained earlier ‘critical mass’ for major advertisers and become, overall, a more valuable media property,” Newsmax said in its lawsuit.

Fox News scoffed at the allegations.

“Newsmax cannot sue their way out of their own competitive failures in the marketplace to chase headlines simply because they can’t attract viewers,” the company said in a statement.

Murdoch’s company declined further comment on Friday.

The Trump-appointed judge wrote that Newsmax’s lawsuit was structured as a “shotgun pleading” — a complaint that contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts.”

Should Newsmax try again, it must untangle its arguments.

“Each count must identify the particular legal basis for liability and contain specific factual allegations that support each cause of action within each count,” Cannon wrote.

A woman who worked as a hairstylist for Fox Sports has resolved most of a lawsuit that alleged former host Skip Bayless made repeated, unwanted advances toward her — including an offer of $1.5 million to have sex with him.

Noushin Faraji is still seeking class-action status for her and others who worked at Fox in California over her allegations of unpaid wages and business expenses.

Fox Sports said in a statement: “We are pleased that this matter has been resolved. There will be no further comment.”

An attorney listed for Bayless in the lawsuit, Robert H. Platt, did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press seeking comment.

Faraji had claimed Fox executives fostered a hostile work environment that allowed senior managers and on-air personalities including Bayless to abuse workers without fear of punishment. The AP does not generally identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted or subjected to abuse unless they have publicly identified themselves, as Faraji had in filing the lawsuit.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Laura A. Seigle granted Faraji’s request to dismiss several allegations because “those claims were resolved,” according to an order by the judge filed this week. The judge’s order does not include details on the resolution.

The individual allegations that were dismissed include sexual battery, failure to prevent harassment and wrongful termination. Faraji was seeking unspecified damages when her lawsuit was filed in January.

Claims that remain for Faraji and allegedly others include failure to pay minimum wages and failure to reimburse business expenses, according to the judge’s order.

Faraji was a hairstylist at Fox for more than a decade. She claimed in her lawsuit that the advances by Bayless, which began in 2017 and continued until last year, included lingering hugs, kisses on the cheek and comments from Bayless that he could change Faraji’s life if she had sex with him.

In 2021, she claimed in the suit, Bayless offered Faraji $1.5 million for sex and, after she refused, later threatened her job.

Bayless worked for Fox Sports until 2024 when his show was canceled after its ratings plummeted with the departure of his co-host, Shannon Sharpe.

Faraji said she was fired in 2024 based on “fabricated” reasons. The lawsuit said she initially remained quiet about her treatment at Fox, believing she could be in danger if she went public.

A recently fired California Legislature staff member filed a lawsuit this week against Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas claiming that the lawmaker and his brother, Rick, retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment and alleged ethics violations.

Former press secretary Cynthia Moreno alleged in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Sacramento County Superior Court, that the speaker targeted her after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against a colleague in May 2024 and stripped her of “significant job responsibilities.”

Early this year, Moreno filed another complaint to the Workplace Conduct Unit, which investigates allegations of inappropriate conduct by legislative employees, alleging Rick Rivas, a nonprofit organization and a political action committee had “funneled money” to exert influence on the speaker, according to the lawsuit.

In response, Moreno alleges in the lawsuit, Rick Rivas used his influence to deny her a tenure-based pay raise and terminate her employment.

Rick Rivas is the American Beverage Assn.’s vice president for California and has acted as a political advisor to his brother. Rick Rivas did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Elizabeth Ashford, a spokesperson for Robert Rivas, said the speaker’s brother had no role in Moreno’s employment and the lawmaker “recused himself from all matters related to Moreno’s termination,” which was handled by the Workplace Conduct Unit.

“The vast conspiracy theories included in this filing are absolutely false,” Ashford said in a statement, adding that “any court will see this for what it is: an attempt by a former employee to force a payout.”

The Assembly Rules Committee terminated Moreno in August after an investigation substantiated allegations of sexual harassment that had been lodged against her, according to Chief Administrative Officer Lia Lopez. Moreno has denied those allegations.

Moreno is seeking damages for lost wages and benefits, lost business opportunities and harm to her professional reputation. She’s also seeking a public apology for the “made-up sexual-harassment allegations launched against [her] for reporting Robert Rivas’ and Rick Rivas’ illegal and unethical actions,” the lawsuit states.

WASHINGTON — When Bill Pulte was nominated as the country’s top housing regulator, he told senators that his “number one mission will be to strengthen and safeguard the housing finance system.”

But since he started the job, he’s distinguished himself by targeting President Trump ‘s political enemies. He’s using property records to make accusations of mortgage fraud and encourage criminal investigations, wielding an obscure position to serve as a presidential enforcer.

This week, Trump used allegations publicized by Pulte in an attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve board, as he tries to exert more control over the traditionally independent central bank.

Pulte claims that Cook designated two homes as her primary residence to get more favorable mortgage rates. Cook plans to fight her removal, laying the groundwork for a legal battle that could reshape a cornerstone institution in the American economy.

Trump said Tuesday that Cook “seems to have had an infraction, and you can’t have an infraction,” adding that he has “some very good people” in mind to replace her.

Pulte has cheered on the president’s campaign with a Trumpian flourish.

“Fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump’s housing market,” he wrote on social media. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Pulte targets Democrats but not Republicans

Pulte, 37, is a housing industry scion whose official job is director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He oversees mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed in conservatorship during the Great Recession almost two decades ago.

Like other political appointees, he routinely lavishes praise on his boss.

“President Trump is the greatest,” he posted over the weekend.

Pulte has made additional allegations of mortgage fraud against Sen. Adam Schiff, one of Trump’s top antagonists on Capitol Hill, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed lawsuits against Trump. Those cases are being pursued by Ed Martin, a Justice Department official.

“In a world where housing is too expensive, we do not need to subsidize housing for fraudsters by letting them get better rates than they deserve,” Pulte wrote on social media.

Pulte has ignored a similar case involving Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general who is friendly with Trump and is running for Senate in his state’s Republican primary. Paxton took out mortgages on three properties that were all identified as his primary residence.

He also has mortgages on two other properties that explicitly prohibit him from renting the properties out, but both have been repeatedly listed for rent, according to real estate listings and posts on short-term rental sites.

Asked about Pulte’s investigations and Trump’s role in them, the White House said that anyone who violates the law should be held accountable.

“President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people,” said Davis Ingle, White House spokesman.

It’s unclear whether Pulte is using government resources to develop the allegations he has made. Mortgage documents are generally public records, but they are typically maintained at the county level across most of the U.S., making them difficult to comprehensively review. However, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are both government-sponsored entities, purchase large tranches of mortgages from lenders, which could centralize much of that information, real estate and legal experts say.

FHFA did not respond to a detailed list of questions from the AP, including whether Pulte or his aides used government resources to conduct his research.

It’s not just mortgages

Pulte’s broadsides go beyond mortgages. He’s been backing Trump’s criticism of Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, over expensive renovations at the central bank’s headquarters. Trump is pressuring Powell to cut interest rates in hopes of lowering borrowing costs, and his allies have highlighted cost overruns to suggest that Powell is untrustworthy or should be removed from his position.

“This guy is supposed to be the money manager for the world’s biggest economy, and it doesn’t even look like he can run a construction site,” Pulte said while wearing a neon safety vest outside the building. “So something doesn’t smell right here.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has reached deep into the government to advance his agenda. He’s overhauled the federal workforce with the Office of Personnel Management, pushed ideological changes at the Smithsonian network of museums and fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics when he didn’t like a recent report on job numbers.

With Pulte in charge, the Federal Housing Finance Agency is becoming another instrument of Trump’s mission to exert control and retaliate against enemies.

It’s a contrast to the Internal Revenue Service, where Trump has unsuccessfully discussed ways to use tax policies as a pressure point. For example, during battles over higher education, Trump threatened to take away Harvard’s long-standing tax-exempt status by saying, “It’s what they deserve.”

However, there are more restrictions there, dating back to the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon.

“It’s been hard for the administration to use the inroads it wants to use to pursue its enemies,” said Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

She said, “The law is very clear about taxpayer privacy and the criminal penalties at play are not small.”

Before going on the attack, Pulte played nice online

Pulte is heir to a home-building fortune amassed by his grandfather, also named William Pulte, who founded a construction company in Detroit in the 1950s that grew into the publicly traded national housing giant now known as the Pulte Group.

He spent four years on the company’s board, and he’s the owner of heating and air conditioning businesses across the U.S. He had never served in government before being nominated by Trump to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“While many children spent their weekends at sporting events, I spent mine on homebuilding jobsites with my father and grandfather,” Pulte said in written testimony for his nomination hearing. “From the ground up, I learned every aspect of housing — whether it was cleaning job sites, assisting in construction, or helping sell homes.”

He once tried to make a name for himself with good deeds, describing himself as the “Inventor of Twitter Philanthropy” and offering money to needy people online. He was working in private equity at the time, and he told the Detroit Free Press that he funded his donations with some “very good liquidity events” to power his donations.

Even six years ago, he appeared focused on getting attention from Trump.

“If @realDonaldTrump retweets this, my team and I will give Two Beautiful Cars to Two Beautiful Veterans on Twitter.”

Trump replied, “Thank you, Bill, say hello to our GREAT VETERANS!”

Pulte, whose most recent financial disclosure shows a net worth of at least $180 million, was also ramping up his political donations.

Over the past six years, he and his wife have donated over $1 million to the political efforts of Trump and his allies, including a $500,000 contribution to a super PAC affiliated with Trump that was the subject of a campaign finance complaint made with the Federal Election Commission.

The Pultes’ $500,000 contribution was made through a company they control named ML Organization LLC, records show. While such contributions are typically allowed from corporations, the same is not always true for some limited liability companies that have a limited business footprint and could be set up to obscure the donor.

The FEC ultimately exonerated the Pultes, but found in April that the Trump super PAC, Make America Great Again, Again! Inc., did not properly disclose that the Pultes were the source of the donation, said Saurav Ghosh, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of federal campaign finance reform.

Ghosh said the donation raises serious questions about Pulte’s appointment to lead FHFA.

“Why is Bill Pulte even in a government position?” he said. “Maybe he’s qualified, maybe he isn’t. But he did pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a pro-Trump super PAC. And I think it’s clear there are these types of rewards for big donors across the Trump administration.”

Megerian, Slodysko and Hussein write for the Associated Press.

The Fox Sports hairstylist who alleged that longtime sports talk show host Skip Bayless made unwanted sexual advances toward her has attempted to have her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed, only to be rebuffed by the court.

The request is an indication the parties have reached a settlement, said Edson McClellan, a lawyer with Rutan & Tucker who specializes in high-stakes civil and employment litigation. In addition to Bayless, defendants include Fox Corp. and two additional high-profile former employees at Fox Sports — commentator Joy Taylor and executive Charlie Dixon.

McClellan said the filing for dismissal by plaintiff Noushin Faraji “is a strong indication that a settlement has been reached.”

The court rejected the request for dismissal because, in addition to Faraji alleging sexual battery, retaliation and wrongful termination, the lawsuit added a class action complaint alleging that Fox engaged in “unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices” by failing to pay minimum wages, reimburse business expenses and pay severance to other employees as well.

For the settlement with Faraji to take place, her lawyers must either refile the lawsuit without the class action complaint or file a declaration explaining why the individual complaint should be dismissed while the class action complaint continues to move forward, according to Alexander R. Wheeler, a partner with the Parris Law Firm.

“The judge sits in an advisory, almost fiduciary relationship with those who stand to benefit from the class action,” Wheeler said. “If the case was settled to the single plaintiff, the judge might say, ‘Hold on, what’s the deal with the class action?’ Judges do not want plaintiffs using the threat of class action to extract a better settlement.”

Faraji’s allegations in the 42-page lawsuit in January had serious consequences for Bayless, Taylor and Dixon. All three were fired, although Taylor and a lawyer for Dixon said their employment with Fox ended for reasons other than the lawsuit.

“For over a decade at Fox, Faraji was forced to endure a misogynistic, racist, and ableist workplace where executives and talent were allowed to physically and verbally abuse workers with impunity,” the lawsuit alleged.

Faraji accused Bayless, 73, of offering her $1.5 million to have sex with him. Bayless worked at Fox Sports from 2016 until 2024, when his show “Undisputed” was canceled after a dip in ratings coincided with the departure of his co-host, former NFL star Shannon Sharpe.

In a separate case, Sharpe in July reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with a woman who accused the Hall of Fame tight end of sexual assault and battery. Sharpe was fired as a commentator on ESPN’s “First Take” after the settlement was completed.

Faraji’s lawsuit alleges that Dixon made an unwanted pass at her during a birthday party for Taylor at a Hollywood restaurant in 2017. Faraji told Taylor about the episode, but Taylor responded by saying, “Get over it,” pointing out that “she herself only had her job because of Mr. Dixon and that Ms. Faraji only had her job because Ms. Taylor requested her,” and “she warned that Mr. Dixon could take both away,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also details an alleged ongoing affair between Taylor and Dixon as well as a romantic relationship between Taylor and another Fox co-host, Emmanuel Acho.

On the “Hot Mics With Billy Bush” podcast a few days ago, Taylor said the allegations weren’t the reason she was let go by Fox.

“I will say that that situation and that suit had nothing to do with the changes that happened at FS1,” she said. “I mean, I think from a logical standpoint, everyone can just look at it and see what the changes were and that there were three shows that were cut.”

In a court filing denying Faraji’s allegations, Taylor’s attorney wrote that her client “welcomes the opportunity to publicly prove that her inclusion in this action is improper.”

Faraji accused Dixon, the FS1 executive producer of content, of sexual harassment. Former network anchor and reporter Julie Stewart-Binks also accused him in a separate lawsuit.

An attorney for Dixon said in a statement emailed to The Times in April that his client had been told by Fox Sports “that he was being let go for violating company policy” in a matter that had nothing to do with the lawsuits.

“According to the network, Mr. Dixon did not disclose to human resources or the legal department that a third-party production company had hired his wife as a temporary freelancer,” attorney John Ly wrote.

Bayless denied “each and every allegation” made by Faraji in a court filing in February, asserting that he “acted with a good faith belief that he had good cause to act as he did” and none of his actions “were in bad faith, spiteful, malicious, or otherwise motivated by any ill-will or illegal intent.”

Faraji alleged that Bayless made repeated unwanted advances toward her during and after she gave him weekly haircuts, and he offered to pay her for sex.

“Mr. Bayless began finding excuses to touch Ms. Faraji,” the lawsuit states. “He would give her lingering hugs after each haircut, putting his body against her own, pressing against her breasts. He then began to kiss her on her cheeks. Ms. Faraji was uncomfortable by the physical contact and would make excuses to leave right after the haircuts.”

In July 2021, the lawsuit states, Faraji explained to Bayless that she was undergoing biopsies to determine whether she had cancer. “Mr. Bayless then grabbed her hands, began kissing them, and offered her $1.5 million to have sex,” according to the lawsuit. “Approximately one week later, Mr. Bayless made another advance at Ms. Faraji. Ms. Faraji responded: ‘Skip, stop, you have a wife.’”

Lawyers for Fox and the defendants went through mediation in March but could not resolve the case, according to a court filing in April. Faraji’s lawyers wrote that “while the parties did not resolve at mediation, they are continuing to engage in settlement discussions with the mediator.”

Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor, said a settlement likely would be imminent once the class action portion of the lawsuit is addressed to the judge’s satisfaction and the individual complaint is dismissed. Non-disclosure agreements could keep the details from being made public.

“We don’t know who is paying what,” she said. “Were admissions involved? So many cases like this involve non-disclosures. But having gone through mediation, it sounds like they went a long way toward reaching a settlement, and they are at that stage now.”

Some inside jokes can be funny. Others not so much.

John Mateer seems to have fallen into the second category: The Oklahoma Sooners quarterback is now on defense regarding NCAA policy about student-athletes and sports betting.

Screenshots of Venmo transactions the QB made in 2022 began circulating Monday on social media. They appear to show that Mateer, then a Washington State freshman, wrote “sports gambling” to describe two separate payments to the same individual. The amounts were undisclosed.

One of those descriptions included in “UCLA vs USC” in parentheses. The Trojans defeated the Bruins 48-45 on Nov. 19, 2022, the day before both Venmo payments were allegedly made.

Current NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from engaging in sports betting at any level, although a proposal is being considered that would permit gambling on professional sports only.

Mateer released a statement Tuesday indicating that he had written those words in jest.

“The allegations that I once participated in sports gambling are false,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “My previous Venmo descriptions did not accurately portray the transactions in question but were instead inside jokes between me and my friends.

“I have never bet on sports. I understand the seriousness of the matter but recognize that, taken out of context, those Venmo descriptions suggest otherwise. I can assure my teammates, coaches, and officials at the NCAA that I have not engaged in any sports gambling.”

Oklahoma Athletics said in a statement that its student-athletes receive ongoing education on matters related to sports gambling and that it uses a service that provides comprehensive monitoring of sports gambling activities.

“OU takes any allegations of gambling seriously and works closely with the NCAA in any situations of concern,” the department said. “OU Athletics is unaware of any NCAA investigation and has no reason to believe there is one pending.”

Mateer played three seasons at Washington State, including the past two as the Cougars’ starting quarterback, before transferring to Oklahoma this offseason.

Busta Rhymes is rejecting claims leveled against him in a lawsuit filed this week by a former assistant, calling it an “attempted shake-down.”

Dashiel Gables, who filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is accusing Rhymes — real name Trevor Smith Jr. — of wage and hour violations as well as assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

“I have been made aware of the claims made by Dashiel Gables, and I completely and categorically deny these allegations,” Rhymes said in a statement to The Times. “For a very brief period, Dashiel assisted me, but it did not work out. Apparently, Dashiel has decided to respond to being let go by manufacturing claims against me in an attempt to attack and damage my reputation.”

Rhymes, 53, said he is preparing a countersuit and is “confident [it] will expose this for what it is — an attempted shake-down by a disgruntled former assistant.”

In the lawsuit, which was reviewed by The Times, Gables alleges that Rhymes repeatedly called him a slur related to sexuality and mocked his poor hearing by telling him to “get a hearing aid.” He also says he was improperly categorized as a salaried employee and wasn’t paid overtime despite allegedly being required to work 15-, 16- and 18-hour shifts regularly for a flat $200 a day.

The lawsuit says he was required to perform “menial tasks,” including fetching cigars for the rapper.

The suit says Gables, 44, accompanied Rhymes on tour from early July to early September of last year, seven days a week, without being paid travel time or overtime, then worked for him from 2 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. daily without pay over his day rate from Sept. 3, 2024, until Jan. 10.

On that last day, the lawsuit alleges, Rhymes “constructively terminated” Gables’ employment “by repeatedly punching him in the face” after first raging at his assistant for not promptly bringing a “catering-size” pan of chicken in from the rapper’s car, then chewing Gables out for sending a text to his minor daughter during work hours.

Gables “tolerated a great deal of abuse while working for Busta Rhymes, he could not tolerate the repeated physical assault and was unable to return to work,” the complaint says, adding that Gables went to the hospital for treatment of bruising and swelling and filed a police report regarding the alleged assault. He did not return to work.

After Gables filed the police report he was “frozen out of the hip-hop music industry,” the complaint alleges. He is seeking back pay as well as compensatory and punitive damages and is asking for a jury trial.

The state of New York has agreed to pay $450,000 to settle a lawsuit from an ex-aide to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo who alleged he sexually harassed and groped her while he was in office.

The former aide, Brittany Commisso, had sued Cuomo and the state, alleging sexual harassment from the then-governor and retaliation against her after reporting the incidents. The allegations were part of a barrage of similar misconduct claims that forced Cuomo to resign as governor in 2021.

Commisso’s lawyers said that the settlement announced Friday “is a complete vindication of her claims” and that she is “glad to be able to move forward with her life.”

The settlement came as Cuomo is in the midst of a so-far bruising political comeback with a run for mayor of New York City. Cuomo lost the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani by more than 12 percentage points, and this week he relaunched his campaign to run in the general election as an independent candidate, beginning a potentially uphill battle in a heavily Democratic city where support is coalescing behind Mamdani.

Cuomo, who has denied wrongdoing, has been dogged by the scandal during his campaign for mayor.

“The settlement is not a vindication, it is capitulation to avoid the truth,” Cuomo’s lawyers said Friday in a statement in which they called Commisso’s allegations false.

The attorneys, Rita Glavin and Theresa Trzaskoma, added that they “oppose the dismissal of Ms. Commisso’s lawsuit.”

“Until the truth is revealed, the lawsuit should not be dismissed,” they said in the statement.

Cuomo resigned as governor after a report from the state attorney general determined that he had sexually harassed at least 11 women, with some alleging unwanted kissing and touching, as well as remarks about their appearances and sex lives.

Commisso filed her lawsuit in late 2023, just before the expiration of the Adult Survivors Act, a special law that created a yearlong suspension of the usual time limit to sue over an alleged sexual assault.

She later filed a criminal complaint accusing Cuomo of groping her but a local district attorney declined to prosecute, citing lack of sufficient evidence.

The Associated Press doesn’t identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they decide to tell their stories publicly, as Commisso has done.

Anthony Hogrebe, a spokesperson for current Gov. Kathy Hochul, said Friday that the state “is pleased to have settled this matter in a way that allows us to minimize further costs to taxpayers.”

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

John Torode, who has presented BBC’s MasterChef with Gregg Wallace since it was revived as MasterChef Goes Large in 2005, said he had “no recollection of the incident”

John Torode says he is “shocked and saddened” by the allegation he used racist language working on MasterChef.

The presenter, who has hosted the BBC show with Gregg Wallace since it was revived as MasterChef Goes Large in 2005, insists he has “absolutely no recollection” of the incident, which was upheld as part of a review into the behaviour of Wallace.

Wallace, 60, was sacked last week after a nearly year-long investigation into misconduct claims. Some 50 made fresh misconduct claims against the TV presenter, according to BBC News, though Wallace denied all allegations.

Now, it has emerged two standalone allegations were made against other people, one of which was the use of racist language made by 59-year-old Torode. Speaking last night in the wake of the fresh developments, another blow to the MasterChef brand, Torode said: “Following publication of the Executive Summary of the investigation into Gregg Wallace while working on MasterChef, I am aware of speculation that I am one of the two other individuals against whom an allegation has been upheld.

“For the sake of transparency, I confirm that I am the individual who is alleged to have used racial language on one occasion. The allegation is that I did so sometime in 2018 or 2019, in a social situation, and that the person I was speaking with did not believe that it was intended in a malicious way and that I apologised immediately afterwards.

“I have absolutely no recollection of any of this, and I do not believe that it happened. However, I want to be clear that I’ve always had the view that any racial language is wholly unacceptable in any environment. I’m shocked and saddened by the allegation as I would never wish to cause anyone any offence.”

READ MORE: MasterChef’s new host Grace Dent savaged show and dished up Gregg Wallace barbs

The chef, who has also been a regular on This Morning, posted his piece on Instagram following Wallace’s statement, in which he said he was “deeply sorry for any distress caused”. The entrepreneur, originally from Peckham, southeast London, added he “never set out to harm or humiliate” in the wake of the report, which said one allegation of “unwelcome physical contact” was upheld. In all, 45 out of 83 allegations against Wallace were substantiated, the report by MasterChef production company Banijay UK and led by law firm Lewis Silkin found.

As soon as the investigation into the historical allegations of misconduct was opened last year, Wallace stepped down from his role on the BBC programme. Yet, in a statement last week, the father of three made a reference to “trial by media” – despite dozens of allegations being upheld.

“For eight months, my family and I have lived under a cloud. Trial by media, fuelled by rumour and clickbait. None of the serious allegations against me were upheld. I challenged the remaining issue of unwanted touching but have had to accept a difference in perception, and I am deeply sorry for any distress caused. It was never intended,” Wallace, who has also been on Saturday Kitchen, said.

The report found that the “majority of the allegations against Mr Wallace (94%) related to behaviour which is said to have occurred between 2005 and 2018”, with only one allegation substantiated after 2018. MasterChef returned to our screens in 2005 – after a four-year break – under the guise of MasterChef Goes Large and has since been branded as MasterChef. Two Christmas specials scheduled to air in the festive period last year were pulled by the BBC amid the investigation.