attorney

Sept. 11, 2026 5:29 PM PT

WASHINGTON — An Afghan woman who was accused of supporting an Islamic State-inspired plot in the United States and whose case was the first for an obscure and long-dormant court has been deported, the Justice Department said Friday.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, was arrested in July at her Fort Worth home and brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on a Justice Department application to deport her from the U.S. On Friday, the department said that she had waived her rights to challenge her detention and had agreed to be deported to Afghanistan.

Haji Zada’s attorneys said her decision to consent to removal “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy.”

“Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process,” the defense lawyers said in a statement Friday. “We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue.”

Court filings about Haji Zada’s deportation, including a judge’s Aug. 20 removal order, remained under seal until after she reached her destination.

The swift resolution averts what could have been a protracted legal fight testing the authority of the court, which was established in 1996 but until July had not received any petitions, as well as the strength of allegations against Haji Zada.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said the case’s outcome is “a win for national security and the rule of law.”

“Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, and this first-ever case before the [court] shows how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country,” Blanche said in a statement.

The Justice Department has described Haji Zada as a supporter of the Islamic State and identified her at the time as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men who were convicted in Oklahoma of plotting an attack in the U.S. on election day in 2024. The plans were foiled before any attack took place.

Her lawyers at the time of the deportation had been pressing the court to force the Justice Department to share information and other evidence to support the allegations in the case.

The court has specific authority to conduct deportation proceedings for people whom the Justice Department classifies as “alien terrorists.” The court is composed of five federal judges from different districts across the country who are appointed by the U.S. chief justice.

“Those who plot acts of terrorism against the United States have no place in our country,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement. “We will find them, and we will use every lawful tool available to remove them.”

On July 30, Judge Joan Ericksen presided over the first hearing for the court’s first case since its creation 30 years ago.

One of Haji Zada’s attorneys argued at the hearing that the Trump administration’s activation of the court violates her constitutional rights. Attorney Matthew Farley urged the judge to dismiss the case and immediately release his client.

An FBI memo dated July 15 said it “developed information” that Haji Zada is an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge their loyalty to the terrorist group. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison and court records show he previously agreed to be removed from the U.S. after his release.

Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, previously worked as a security guard for an American military installation in Afghanistan. He pleaded guilty to conspiring and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State group. Prosecutors have said he took steps to advance his attack plans by ordering AK-47 rifles, liquidating his family’s assets and buying one-way tickets for his wife and child to travel home to Afghanistan.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

The sprawling snack-food factory in upstate New York appeared to be closed when a small army of immigration officers arrived after 9 a.m. Following a brief discussion of whether to force their way inside, a manager opened the front door.

Over the next several hours, body cameras were running as federal authorities from several agencies made 57 arrests, debated which files to seize and when to release employees who were U.S. citizens. They also searched for anyone in hiding.

The footage from September 2025 shows the raid at the Nutrition Bar Confectioners plant in Cato, N.Y., town of 2,500 people east of Syracuse, and offers a rare glimpse inside a workplace immigration sweep. The Associated Press analyzed the video, which was part of a lawsuit filed Thursday that accuses authorities of overstepping their search warrants.

The officers ordered a manager to announce their presence over loudspeakers while they entered the building and caught employees on the production line, in the warehouse and a few in the bathroom. Officers covered all exits while others swept the interior, including homing in on locked doors.

Male officers encountered a locked bathroom and began shouting instructions in broken Spanish at female employees through the door, demanding that they come out. After about 10 seconds, officers broke through the door.

One woman was outside of a stall and another in the stall. A male officer peered through a locked stall door, and his body cam video revealed a woman sitting on the toilet.

“Miss, pull up your pants. Come out of the bathroom,” he told her.

“You have to wait. I can’t come out like this, naked!” she replied.

Investigators interviewed the general manager and said they were looking into hiring practices and potential fraudulent documents. Inside and outside the building, officers checked every office, storage room and hallway for anyone who was hiding.

Employees were lined up and separated into groups of U.S. citizens and potential noncitizens. Officers asked for their immigration status, requested documents and posed questions about their entry into the U.S. Some employees were pregnant.

Some were parents and expressed concern for their children at home. Others said they would not answer questions without first speaking to their attorneys, and officers told them they would be arrested.

One employee refused to answer questions. “Will you let me talk to my attorney?” she asked the officer. He raised his voice and continued asking about her immigration status.

U.S. citizens were asked for personal information, including their phone numbers and addresses before they were allowed to leave.

A Border Patrol agent who spoke to another official wearing a camera used disparaging language about children from other countries when recounting his experience working at a South Texas immigrant detention center. He said President Biden’s administration allowed millions of people to enter the United States from countries where children are treated “differently” than they are by American parents.

“In other countries, kids are more of a commodity or it’s more of like, I’m going to put it in those terms. It’s more like an animal, right? It’s not prized the way that we do it,” he said.

“There’s countries like Brazil and other places where they’re literal street rats at a very young age who commit crimes, and then they come here. I don’t know if you have kids, but they’ll eat our kids for breakfast.”

The Homeland Security Department said Friday that it executed a criminal search warrant at the plant as part of an investigation that is still open. Its statement did not address the contents of the video or the merits of the lawsuit.

Not all officers wore body cameras, but those who did often indicated to other officers that they were recording before they initiated a conversation.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit is responsible for workplace raids, which have been relatively few and low-key compared with ICE’s removal unit, which arrests people in the street, at homes and in public and also manages detention centers. The Trump administration’s largest workplace raid was last year at a Hyundai electric vehicle plant in Georgia. It resulted in nearly 500 arrests and fueled diplomatic tension with South Korea.

The lawsuit against Homeland Security claims federal officers exceeded the authority of their warrants and violated workers’ constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

“There were no arrest warrants,” said Perry Grossman, a supervising attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit with the Worker Justice Center of New York.

“There was no suspicion that individual workers had committed crimes. And they seized easily 100 people for nonconsensual questioning. They arrested 57. Out of those 57 people, criminal charges were brought against only five. And the most serious charge was unlawful reentry.”

Grossman said one employee got her charges dismissed after contending in a lawsuit that her 4th Amendment rights were violated. He said he was not aware of any charges or indictments against the employers.

Officers detained about 60 people and deported some employees, including two plaintiffs who are part of Thursday’s lawsuit. One plaintiff has since been allowed to reenter the country. Attorneys for the second deported plaintiff are seeking his return.

Law enforcement agencies have come under criticism for not using body cameras and for refusing to release footage when they do. ICE, in particular, has been scrutinized after a $75-billion infusion from Congress and an expanding street presence that has led to three fatal shootings this year.

ICE’s own rules on releasing video are unclear. Its policy calls for expedited release of footage after a serious injury or death in custody when doing so is determined to be in the “ best interests of the agency.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly promised to equip ICE field agents with body cameras, as required by Congress. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last week that the agency was “on track” to do so by the end of September.

Gonzalez and Vancleave write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 4, 2026 8:41 AM PT

MCALLEN, Texas — A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer falsely told investigators he was being attacked with a broom and shovel before he shot and wounded a Venezuelan man during the Minnesota immigration crackdown last winter, according to a federal indictment unsealed Friday.

Christian Castro is charged with six counts of making false statements to investigators in the first Justice Department prosecution of a federal officer for actions taken during this year’s massive Operation Metro Surge. The operation brought thousands of agents to the Twin Cities and led to sweeping protests, arrests and the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers.

The allegations in the federal indictment mirror those brought by Minnesota officials, who have separately charged Castro with assault and false reporting of a crime related to the nonfatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in January.

Castro turned himself into federal authorities Thursday evening following his release from jail last week because Texas’ governor refused to immediately sign an extradition warrant to hand him over to Minnesota authorities.

According to the federal indictment, Castro told an FBI agent that a man grabbed a red broom off the front porch and began hitting him with it. Castro also claimed that another man hit him with a snow shovel. Castro said he opened fire while on the ground as the men ran away.

The indictment alleges that Castro had a short “physical interaction” with Sosa-Celis and another man, before the two ran into a home with a 1-year-old child inside. Castro then fired a shot through the front door while standing as the men began to close it, hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg, the indictment says.

“No person struck” Castro “with a broom as he described, and no persons wielded the broom and snow shovel as he described,” the indictment says.

No attorney is listed for Castro in the case brought by Minnesota and it was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer to speak on his behalf.

Federal prosecutors had initially charged Sosa-Celis and the other man, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, with assault but dropped the charges after video evidence showed the officer may have lied about the encounter. Castro was suspended from ICE in February while authorities pursued an investigation.

The federal investigation into Castro created turmoil inside the Justice Department, with a prosecutor on the case accusing higher ups of blocking efforts to bring more serious civil rights charges.

In an email obtained by ProPublica, the prosecutor told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and others that Castro would be charged only with making false statements over his “strongest objections,” adding the decision was “being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney.”

A person familiar with the investigation, however, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the civil rights probe is ongoing and that additional charges could still be brought.

The prosecutor, Matthew Evans, has since been fired and the Justice Department is now investigating whether he broke any laws during his handling of the case, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not publicly authorized to discuss ongoing investigations.

An automatic email response from Evans’ Justice Department account said he was on leave, and other attempts to reach him were not immediately successful.

Sosa-Celis’ lawyer is pressing for Castro to face stiffer charges, saying in a statement on Thursday that Castro’s statements were made to “cover up the fact that he shot my client through the door of an occupied house without a self-defense justification.”

“Mr. Sosa Celis wants Mr. Castro to be held fully accountable for his crimes,” said the attorney, Robin Wolpert. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota said Thursday that Sosa-Celis also plans to seek damages from the federal government.

Gonzalez and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.

Former USC and NFL quarterback Mark Sanchez plans to enter a guilty plea in connection with his physical altercation with a 69-year-old truck driver in Indianapolis last October, according to online court records.

Attorneys for both sides entered a joint motion Thursday requesting that the judge “set this matter for a guilty plea and sentencing hearing,” according to WTHR-TV in Indianapolis, which has viewed the filing.

A jury trial had been scheduled to start Tuesday. The filing asks instead for a sentencing trial to be scheduled for November.

“The parties have reached a resolution that will obviate the need for the jury trial,” the document reads.

Sanchez was in town during the first weekend of October to cover a Colts game for Fox Sports. According to a police affidavit, Sanchez accosted Perry Tole after the Indiana resident had backed his truck into the loading docks of a downtown Indianapolis hotel.

Sanchez was charged with a level five felony of battery involving serious bodily injury, as well as the misdemeanors of battery resulting in injury, unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle and public intoxication. It is not clear the charges to which Sanchez will be pleading guilty.

In a civil suit against Sanchez, Tole alleged that he suffered “severe permanent disfigurement, loss of function, other physical injuries, emotional distress, and other damages.” Sanchez was hospitalized with stab wounds to his upper right torso following the incident.

“This is a positive development. We are finalizing an agreement with the prosecutor’s office that provides a path toward resolving the state’s case,” Nick Sanchez Jr., the former quarterback’s brother and legal advisor, said Thursday in a statement obtained by multiple media outlets. “We’re also encouraged by the constructive conversations taking place regarding the related civil matter. There is real momentum toward bringing this entire chapter to a close.”

Tole’s attorney, Matt Golitko, said Thursday in a statement: “We are pleased with the constructive and professional conversations we’ve had with Mr. Sanchez’s team. Our discussions have been productive and we’re on a positive path toward an agreement that will allow the parties to move forward. Mr. Tole appreciates the progress we have achieved and looks forward to an amicable resolution.”

Sanchez played for the New York Jets, Philadelphia, Dallas and Washington during his eight-year NFL career. Fox Sports confirmed in November that Sanchez is no longer employed by the network.

Jim Thornton, the longtime announcer for the popular game show “Wheel of Fortune,” has been suspended following unspecified allegations.

“We have recently been made aware of allegations concerning Jim Thornton,” a spokesperson for Sony Pictures Television Studios told The Times. “He has been suspended from ‘Wheel of Fortune’ and we are recasting while we conduct a thorough investigation.”

Sony Pictures did not specify the reason for the suspension.

The allegations could possibly stem from an incident that occurred in May aboard a commercial American Airlines flight to Los Angeles, TMZ reported, when a passenger complained about Thornton to a flight attendant.

American Airlines told TMZ that a passenger was met by law enforcement upon arrival at Los Angeles International Airport on May 14, although the airline did not identify the individual.

Thornton’s attorney told the outlet that the 61-year-old “did not engage in any illegal conduct, was not arrested and has not been charged with any crime.”

“When questioned about the complaint made by a fellow passenger on the flight, law enforcement spoke to him for five minutes or less, immediately determined that no wrongdoing had occurred and told my client he was free to go,” his attorney continued.

Thornton joined “Wheel of Fortune” in 2011 following the death of announcer Charlie O’Donnell.

Thornton’s credits include “The Price Is Right,” “The Soup,” “Jeopardy!” and “Celebrity Wheel of Fortune.” Thornton’s voice was also been featured in the 2001 animated hit “Monsters, Inc.,” and video games including “Wall-E” and “Mafia II.”

Josh Jacobs’ court appearance on two misdemeanor charges resulting from an alleged altercation with his girlfriend in May isn’t until Nov. 27. The Green Bay Packers, the team for which he stars at running back, will have played 11 regular season games by then.

That means the NFL will likely determine whether to let him play before knowing the outcome of his criminal case.

Jacobs was placed on the commissioner‘s exempt list, the league announced Sunday. He is not allowed to play or even practice — although he will be paid — and only commissioner Roger Goodell can remove him from it.

Former USC running back Marshawn Lloyd is expected to get the first shot at filling Jacobs’ shoes when the Packers open at the Minnesota Vikings on Sept. 13. Lloyd was a third-round pick in 2024 after leading the Trojans with 820 rushing yards and nine touchdowns. He averaged 7.1 yards per carry and 17.8 yards on 13 receptions.

Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs during training camp in Ashwaubenon, Wis.

(Abbie Parr/Associated Press)

Injuries have kept Lloyd off the field for all but one game in his two seasons with the Packers. However, he has been healthy throughout training camp and worked with the first-team offense while Jacobs was slowed by a groin injury.

Lloyd will have competition. Shortly after Jacobs was placed on the commissioner’s exempt list Sunday, Green Bay acquired second-year running back Kaleb Johnson from the Pittsburgh Steelers. Johnson was a third-round pick out of Iowa, where he led the Big Ten with 1,537 rushing yards and 21 touchdowns in 2025. He rushed for only 69 yards with the Steelers last season, seeing action mainly on special teams.

Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst said last week that the team was preparing for Jacobs serving a potential suspension.

“We’ll deal with that when that comes, but we’ve obviously prepared for [a suspension] in case that happens,” he said. “But at the same time I feel really good about the guys we’ve got in that room, and I think we can survive that.”

The only other running back on the roster besides Lloyd and Johnson is Chris Brooks, who served primarily as a blocking back and special teams contributor last season.

Jacobs’ attorneys released a statement underscoring that the NFL is reviewing his case. The time spent on the commissioner’s exempt list would be counted toward any suspension, although he would have to pay back salary earned while on the list.

“Josh Jacobs has been placed on the commissioner’s exempt list, which is an administrative procedure used by the NFL while a matter is being reviewed,” the statement read. “It is not a final determination. Josh respects the NFL process, the Packers, and his coaches and teammates. He looks forward to his return to the team and the NFL.”

Jacobs was formally charged Thursday with misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor criminal damage to property, stemming from the May 23 incident at his home near Green Bay. The Brown County (Wis.) District Attorney’s Office released an incident report that describes video footage taken inside Jacobs’ garage. A felony and four misdemeanor charges pertaining to domestic violence were dropped.

Jacobs and his girlfriend quarreled over content on both of their phones, according to the report, and video from the garage allegedly shows that Jacobs grabbed her, threw her to the ground and she struck her head.

Packers coach Matt LaFleur said Friday that he expects Jacobs to remain with the franchise regardless of the outcome of the case. Jacobs would be subject to a fine of no more than $10,000 and no more than nine months in jail if he is convicted.

SACRAMENTO — The California state Legislature voted Sunday to amend a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims but was blamed for draining the coffers of municipalities and school districts.

Senate Bill 577 by John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) follows years of heated debate over the state law, which resulted in scores of lawsuits against cities, counties and schools.

Since the law was enacted, L.A. County has agreed to pay more than $5 billion to settle more than 12,000 claims stemming from alleged sexual abuse committed by government employees in foster homes and juvenile halls.

The bill passed by the Legislature on Sunday requires victims older than 40 to provide evidence that the public entity was aware of the misconduct that resulted in the assault and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it.

It also states that attorneys who file fraudulent sex abuse lawsuits can be fined $25,000 per violation. The Times reported last year on nine plaintiffs who said they were paid to sue the county over sex abuse, some of whom said they were told to fabricate their claims.

Consumer attorneys, counties and victims rights groups jostled over the elements of the proposed bill over the last few months.

Lawmakers stopped short of capping payouts in the bill, a change sought by some local governments and school districts.

The legislation follows multiple attempts to change the law in recent years. Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) tried last year to increase the burden of proof for sex abuse cases, but pulled the bill after outrage from victims rights groups.

Some of the groups blasted the bill on Sunday night, arguing it would shield rapists and deny justice to survivors.

Speaking on the floor of the state Senate, Laird said that he tried to balance the needs of all parties.

The bill now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration.

L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman did something last week few prosecutors ever do — changed his mind in public, swapping out felony charges for misdemeanors in the case of an LAPD officer accused of secretly taping homophobic, racist and misogynistic remarks made by colleagues.

Since then, Hochman has been slammed for playing politics, embarrassing his office and even backing down for no reason other than the pressure was too intense.

Not a stellar look for a politician relatively new to elected office.

After speaking with Hochman about the reversal, I have a more optimistic take on it — drawn from a Talmudic quote that Hochman keeps on his desk, and which his father — a tax lawyer who represented at least one mobster — kept on his desk before him.

It’s Deuteronomy 16:20, “Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof” — Justice, justice you shall pursue.

It’s that double justice that holds weight in this situation, because, as Hochman explains it, his god rarely repeats himself without reason. Hochman said he reads that echo as referring to two parts of delivering justice — the process and the result.

“We try to get the right result. We try to get it in the right way,” Hochman told me.

When things go wrong, like they did in this case, he’ll reevaluate, he said, even if it leaves him with egg on his face.

“If that means that I have to publicly come out at a press conference and say that our initial decision-making, and what went into it, turns out not to have been perfect, and it is not set in stone, and we think there’s a better way of doing something, I’m going to stand up in a press conference and say exactly that,” he said.

A prosecutor who is willing to change his or her mind is critical to delivering real justice, because people get things wrong. Hochman holds incredible power over the thousands of lives entangled in the matters his office handles. Leaving that power of process in the hands of someone who can’t admit they made a mistake (as is the case with more D.A.’s than not) puts justice on a greased slide into a cesspool of hubris.

The distinction between the two forms of justice may seem like splitting hairs, but to anyone who has ever been involved with our justice system — as a victim or defendant, innocent or guilty — being dragged into a prosecution can often feel like an avalanche of misfortune.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think every person charged with a crime is a victim. There are plenty of predators out there, committing violations big and small, that require accountability.

But the process of administering justice is far more subjective and messy than we often admit. Sometimes, even when the prosecutor involved almost certainly knows something other than justice is in the works, there is a momentum of ego and bureaucracy that is hard to reverse.

And it doesn’t take a guilty verdict to derail a life. Simply having charges filed can mean a job loss, losing custody of kids, incarceration for months or years waiting for a trial, financial hardship and stigma.

We like to think of an innocent verdict as a great vindication, but by the time one arrives, if it does, a lifetime of damage may already have been done — that is the unseen power of process.

Just ask Daniel Flores, the LAPD officer whose case we’re talking about. Though he likely will eventually see all criminal charges dismissed, Flores told my colleagues Libor Jany and Richard Winton that this incident has “ruined” his life.

Hochman for weeks has faced intense public anger over his initial decision to charge Flores with 16 felonies. Folks from the lofty heights of the mayor to this lowly columnist objected, pointing out that punishing whistleblowers, even ones who may have technically broken the law as Hochman said Flores likely did (though Flores’ lawyer disputes that), would chill other officers from coming forward.

Hochman at first defended the charges, pointing out that as a sworn officer, Flores had an even higher duty to adhere to the letter and spirit of the law.

But, he said, he was unprepared for how strongly the public would react to the whistleblower part of the case. Though he contends he never meant to send a message silencing those who would expose wrongdoing, he concedes that did happen.

“People interpreted it that we’re trying to discourage all whistleblowers by the way we went about this prosecution,” Hochman said.

He also acknowledges that he is still learning what it means to be in this elected office. Though he has been both a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney, this is by far the most publicly accountable and visible role he has held, and he’s still figuring out that part of the job. It’s easy to be the candidate lobbing criticisms, or even the defense lawyer arguing the facts. It is much harder to be the person answerable to the nearly 10 million people of Los Angeles County when it comes to ensuring they feel both protected and respected by the law.

In his first year in office, more than one civil liberties advocate has taken issue with his approach.

“It is a continuous learning experience. In fact, anyone who takes this job and doesn’t view this as a daily learning experience cannot possibly do the job well,” he said. “If you don’t adapt to what’s out there, you don’t listen to what’s going on … you will fail, and by failure, I mean that you won’t achieve a society where people trust that the district attorney’s office is doing its job and doing it as best as it possibly could,” he said.

He blames the media in part for distracting from his accountability message in favor of the whistleblower-chilling angle in the Flores case — likely including headlines such as the one I wrote, “Protecting the blue wall of silence is not justice in LAPD whistleblower case.”

I’m willing to stand by the process that got me to that opinion, and also to give Hochman credit for being willing to change direction on his process when it was leading our city down the wrong path.

There are plenty of places where I hope Hochman will apply that rigor in the future — issues such as the death penalty, which he has brought back to Los Angeles, or in other difficult cases such as the killing of Keith Porter Jr. by an off-duty ICE agent. Porter’s family recently asked Hochman to convene a grand jury to hear the facts.

But that Hochman thinks about process, and the power that it holds, speaks well for justice in Los Angeles — even, maybe especially, when things go awry.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta abruptly pulled out of a planned mediation session Monday to seek a resolution to the antitrust lawsuit that has stalled Paramount’s blockbuster $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Bonta, in a statement, cited Paramount’s alleged leaking and misrepresenting information the two sides discussed during a preliminary session Friday.

Representatives of Bonta and Paramount Skydance came together late last week to set ground rules for Monday’s meeting, which was to involve Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison.

One of the rules had been confidentiality of the mediation process.

“I have pulled down this meeting,” Bonta said in a statement. “As I have said before, generally for all cases, I prefer to resolve disputes in the boardroom, not the courtroom. As I’ve also said, if the opposing party in litigation wants to meet in good faith to make a sincere effort to resolve the case.”

Bonta went on to say “Not only did Paramount leak the alleged substance of the settlement discussions, but they misrepresented these discussions, demonstrating a lack of good faith.

“As soon as Paramount stops playing games and engages sincerely, my office is happy to meet again.”

This is a developing story.