bar

Police have told residents to stay home and not approach the suspect, who could be ‘armed and dangerous’.

A manhunt is under way for a former United States soldier suspected of carrying out a shooting in a bar in the US state of Montana, which has left four people dead.

The shooting happened on Friday at about 10:30am (16:30 GMT) at The Owl Bar in Anaconda, with four people pronounced dead at the scene, according to the Montana Division of Criminal Investigation.

The suspect has been identified as 45-year-old military veteran Michael Paul Brown. Brown lived next door to the bar, according to public records and owner David Gwerder.

Gwerder, who was not there at the time of the incident, said a bartender and three patrons were killed before Brown fled the scene.

“He knew everybody that was in that bar. I guarantee you that,” Gwerder said. “He didn’t have any running dispute with any of them. I just think he snapped.”

Brown’s home in Anaconda – a town of about 9,000 people, located in southwest Montana about 109 miles (175km) west of the city of Bozeman – was cleared by a SWAT team.

Montana Senator Steve Daines said a “massive manhunt” is under way, aided by drones.

Authorities said Brown was last seen in the Stump Town area, just west of Anaconda, and he is “believed to be armed and dangerous”.

He should not be approached if seen, the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Law Enforcement Center said in a social media post, while Anaconda residents have been instructed to stay home and lock their doors.

More than a dozen police officers have converged on Stump Town, locking it down so no one is allowed in or out as police search for Brown in a wooded, mountainous area.

Randy Clark, a retired police officer who lives in the area, said a police helicopter hovered over a nearby mountainside as officers moved among the trees.

A US army spokesperson said Brown served as an armour crewman from 2001 to 2005 and was deployed to Iraq from early 2004 until March 2005. Brown was also in the Montana National Guard from 2006 to 2009.

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte said in a social media post that he was “closely monitoring the situation involving an active shooter in Anaconda”.

Our hearts are with the community of Anaconda, Montana, where four lives were lost in a senseless bar shooting.

Law enforcement is actively searching for the suspect, Michael Paul Brown, who remains at large and is considered armed and dangerous. We stand with the brave officers… pic.twitter.com/nHmlib8D2o

— National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) (@GLFOP) August 1, 2025

The South American nation has reeled under a substantial increase in violent crime over the last several years.

Gunmen in Ecuador have killed at least 17 people, including a child, in an attack on a bar, the latest incident to underscore the South American nation’s challenges with rising violent crime.

The country’s attorney general said on Monday that more than 40 pieces of ballistic evidence were recovered from the bar in the small town of El Empalme, located about 160 kilometres [100 miles] north of the city of Guayaquil in the coastal province of Guayas.

Images shared by Ecuadorian media show bodies and pools of blood across the floor of the bar.

Ecuador has reeled from a surge in violent crime over the last several years, which experts say is largely driven by criminal groups sparring over territory and lucrative drug trafficking routes.

Police said that groups of gunmen in two trucks opened fire on the bar with pistols and rifles on Sunday night in an attack that also injured at least 11 people, with other reports putting the number as high as 14.

One minor hit in the attack ran more than a kilometre before collapsing in the street and dying from his wounds.

The news agency AFP reported that the trucks full of men also shot and killed two more people at a different location, and that the men shouted “Active Wolves!” during the attack on the bar.

El Empalme police chief Oscar Valencia said the term was a possible reference to the criminal group Los Lobos, which competes with another group, Los Choneros, for control of drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and illegal mining operations.

Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa has pushed for expanded powers for the executive and state security forces in the name of addressing crime, measures that have mostly won over public support despite concerns over potential abuses.

A United States judge has blocked immigration authorities from immediately detaining and deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia upon his release from jail.

The decision was part of a one-two punch on Wednesday, as two courts weighed in on the Maryland father’s fate.

Abrego Garcia was catapulted into the national spotlight in March after the administration of President Donald Trump wrongfully deported him to his native El Salvador, despite a court order protecting him from removal.

His case became emblematic of the early days of Trump’s mass deportation drive, with critics accusing the president of taking a slapdash approach that violated the due process of the law.

In recent weeks, Abrego Garcia has been held in a Tennessee prison, as the Trump administration pursues criminal charges against him.

But in one of Wednesday’s twin rulings, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville upheld the finding that Abrego Garcia could be released from jail, rejecting Trump administration claims that he might be a danger or a flight risk.

Crenshaw also expressed doubt about the Trump administration’s claims that Abrego Garcia is a member of the gang MS-13, citing a lack of evidence.

His decision allows Abrego Garcia to potentially be released from detention as he awaits a January trial on human smuggling charges. Still, his release has been once again delayed for a period of 30 days, at the request of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, who fear he could be deported.

Simultaneously on Wednesday, a second court hearing was unfolding in Maryland under US District Judge Paula Xinis.

She has been hearing arguments about Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation to El Salvador, as part of a lawsuit filed by his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura.

Given that Trump officials have signalled they plan to deport Abrego Garcia if he is released, Xinis issued a ruling requiring that immigration officials to give him notice of three business days if they initiate removal proceedings.

The Trump administration, Xinis wrote, has “done little to assure the court that, absent intervention, Abrego Garcia’s due process rights will be protected”.

Xinis also ordered the government to restore the legal status that Abrego Garcia had previously been under, which allowed him to live and work in Maryland.

Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in March, in violation of an immigration judge’s 2019 order barring him from being sent back to his home country.

His lawyers have maintained that Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager to avoid gang threats.

The government acknowledged that Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador had been the result of an “administrative error”.

Judge Xinis — and later the US Supreme Court — ultimately ruled that the Trump administration had a responsibility to “facilitate” his return to the US.

But the Trump administration doubled down, arguing that Abrego Garcia’s removal was lawful and painting him as a member of MS-13.

Trump even posted a picture of himself to social media holding a photo of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles, with the letters and numbers for “MS-13” digitally superimposed on each finger, next to real tattoos of a smiley face and marijuana leaf.

“He’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles,” Trump wrote, falsely, on April 18.

Judge Xinis had threatened to find the Trump administration in contempt of court for failing to adequately facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release, or provide meaningful updates. Officials had argued that they had little power to bring him back, given that he was held in El Salvador.

But in early June, the Trump administration abruptly announced Abrego Garcia’s return to the US. At the same time, the Justice Department revealed it had obtained an indictment to criminally charge Abrego Garcia.

At the centre of the government’s case is a video from a November 2022 traffic stop, showing Abrego Garcia driving a Chevrolet Suburban SUV with three rows of seats. A police officer heard in the footage speculates that the nine passengers could be involved in human smuggling, but no charges were brought at that time.

His lawyers have dismissed the government’s case as “preposterous”.

Still, before Xinis’s ruling, the lawyers had requested Abrego Garcia remain in custody as he awaits trial, for fear that he might be immediately deported if released.

While Abrego Garcia cannot be sent to El Salvador again, the Trump administration has maintained he can be legally deported to a third country, even one where he has no personal ties.

Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could, at least in the short term, continue to deport individuals to such third-party countries while legal challenges proceed against the practice.

Some of those third-party countries have included South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, both of which have faced accusations of human rights abuses in their prisons.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security took to the social media platform X on Wednesday to criticise Xinis’s latest ruling.

“The fact this unhinged judge is trying to tell ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] they can’t arrest an MS-13 gang member, indicted by a grand jury for human trafficking, and subject to immigration arrest under federal law is LAWLESS AND INSANE,” spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote, reiterating unproven claims.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, however, applauded Wednesday’s court decisions.

“These rulings are a powerful rebuke of the government’s lawless conduct and a critical safeguard for Kilmar’s due process rights,” lawyer Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said in a statement.

Dan Serafini was a first-round draft pick from a prestigious private high school. He pitched professionally for 22 seasons and earned more than $14 million while with six Major League teams and two in the Japanese League.

Now he might spend the rest of his life in prison.

Serafini, 51, was convicted Monday of first-degree murder in the 2021 shooting death of his father-in-law, Robert Gary Spohr, 70. He also was found guilty of the attempted murder of Spohr’s wife, Wendy Wood, and first-degree burglary.

Serafini entered the Spohrs’ Lake Tahoe home June 5, 2021, where prosecutors said he secretly waited with a .22 caliber gun for several hours for the victims to return before ambushing them. Two children, ages 3 years and 8 months, were in the home at the time.

“The guilty verdicts come after a six-week trial during which the jury heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and the presentation of physical evidence, including digital, cell phone, and other forensic evidence,” according to a Facebook post from the Placer County District Attorney’s Office.

According to evidence presented at trial, when the Spohrs arrived, Serafini shot both of them in the head and fled the house. Wood survived and called 911. She died by suicide in 2023.

Two years later police arrested Serafini and his nanny-turned-lover, Samantha Scott, 33. Scott pleaded guilty in February to an accessory charge.

Serafini’s motive centered on a $1.3-million dispute over the renovation of a ranch, according to prosecutors. Serafini, prosecutors said, hated his in-laws and had written “I’m gonna kill them one day” in a text message mentioning $21,000, according to ABC News Sacramento affiliate KXTV. The victims had given $90,000 to Serafini’s wife, Erin, the day of the shootings.

“It’s been four years since my mom and dad were shot, and it’s been four years of just hell,” said Adrienne Spohr, the victims’ daughter and Serafini’s sister-in-law, said after the verdict.

Adrienne Spohr was heard gasping and crying along with others in the courtroom when the verdict was read aloud, according to KXTV. Serafini shook his head in disagreement.

The mandatory minimum for first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement is 25 years to life, but could increase to 35 years depending on how the charges are applied.

“My parents had been incredibly generous to Daniel Serafini and Erin Spohr throughout their marriage,” Adrienne Spohr said earlier in the trial.

The Minnesota Twins made Serafini their first-round draft pick in 1992 out of Junipero Serra High in San Mateo, Calif., the same school all-time home run king Barry Bonds attended. Serafini made his big league debut in 1996 with the Twins and pitched in parts of seven seasons with the Chicago Cubs, San Diego Padres, Pittsburgh Pirates, Cincinnati Reds and Colorado Rockies.

Serafini pitched in Japan from 2004 to 2007 before returning to the U.S. He was suspended for 50 games in 2007 for using performance-enhancing drugs that he blamed on medication he took in Japan. He also pitched for Italy in the 2013 World Baseball Classic.

On June 28, 2015, Serafini’s bar in Sparks, Nev., was featured on an episode of “Bar Rescue.” The bar’s named was changed from the Bullpen Bar to the Oak Tavern as part of the makeover, but not before his financial woes were described as blowing through $14 million in career earnings and taking a $250,000 loan from his parents.

Serafini’s sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 18. He will remain in custody without bail until then.

“At this point, our focus is on the sentencing and making sure that Dan Serafini never sees the outside of a jail ever again,” Adrienne Spohr said.

The Trump administration has faced a raft of legal challenges as it seeks to radically restrict immigration to the US.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump cannot block approved refugees from entering the country under the guise of a wider travel ban.

US District Judge Jamal Whitehead ruled late on Monday that Trump’s June order barring people from 12 countries from entering the US expressly states that it will not stop people from seeking refugee status.

“In other words, by its plain terms, the Proclamation excludes refugees from its scope,” Whitehead wrote.

The ruling is the latest development in a dizzying number of court cases challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to radically restrict immigration through a raft of policies that have stretched the limits of executive power.

The judge ordered the administration to continue processing a group of 80 refugees who had already been through vetting and were “presumptively protected refugees” who were nonetheless turned back due to the travel ban.

That ban applies to 12 countries and expands on a similar effort pursued by Trump during his first term in office, when his so-called “Muslim ban” prompted widespread anger and faced legal challenges before being ultimately upheld by the conservative-majority Supreme Court.

The June order applies to countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, and Sudan, as well as Haiti and Myanmar, among others.

The administration has also revoked existing legal status for scores of people from countries like Afghanistan and Haiti, throwing their future in the country into doubt and opening them up to the possibility of deportations to countries that experts say remain mired in conflict and unsafe conditions.

A US court temporarily paused an order by the Trump administration ending Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for Afghans living in the US on Monday, several hours before it was set to expire, extending that status by one week as the court deliberates on the issue further.

Trump suspended the US refugee admissions programme upon entering office at the beginning of his second term in January, leaving thousands of people who had already been cleared for admission, sometimes after years of an arduous bureaucratic and vetting process, in a state of limbo.

A handful of refugees and advocacy groups sued, and Whitehead ruled in February that the administration could not suspend a programme created and funded by Congress. A US Circuit court put that decision on hold in March, however, ruling that the president has wide latitude over the question of who may enter the country.

Ever since operetta composer Victor Herbert sued Shanley’s restaurant in New York in 1917 to force it to pay for playing his song on a player-piano, songwriters and music publishers have depended on Performing Rights Organizations to make sure they get compensated.

For much of the last century, three organizations dominated the industry, a relatively staid and unglamorous corner of the music scene that remained largely unchanged throughout the eras of radio, records and CDs. But the rise of streaming has led to a surge in revenue and spawned a handful of new organizations looking to cash in.

Now there are at least half a dozen PROs in the United States, representing songwriters and publishers, each demanding that bars, restaurants, hotels and other venues pay a fee or risk being sued.

Businesses say the rising licensing costs have become overwhelming, and some question whether it’s even worth playing music at all. The House Judiciary Committee last fall asked the Copyright Office to investigate the current system and consider potential reforms. In February, the Office opened an inquiry and received thousands of comments from businesses and songwriters.

“The growing proliferation of PROs and their lack of transparency have made it increasingly difficult to offer music in our establishments,” hundreds of small businesses from across the country wrote to the Copyright Office in a joint letter.

“The issue is not that small businesses are unwilling to pay for music,” they wrote, adding that the current system is unfair and untenable. “Small businesses can be left feeling like PROs have them over the proverbial barrel.”

Creating a welcoming ambiance in a restaurant or yoga studio isn’t as simple as putting on a Spotify playlist. Streaming has unleashed trillions of songs, and every one must be licensed and have royalties paid to the songwriter whenever any track is played in public. Violations can cost up to $150,000 per infringement.

This booming market for music publishing has led to a windfall for the two major PROs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, founded in 1914, and BMI, established in 1939, together represent more than 90% of musical compositions in the U.S. today with talent lists covering Taylor Swift, Olivia Rodrigo, Jay-Z, Lady Gaga and Eminem, to name a few. SESAC, founded in 1931, rounds out the original three and operates on an invite-only basis.

ASCAP, the oldest and, as a nonprofit, the only PRO to publicly share data on its collections and payout, has seen revenue jump to $1.8 billion in 2024 from $935 million in 2010. Broadcast Music Inc., in its last public report as a nonprofit in 2022, showed record revenue of $1.6 billion, with 48% of that from digital sources.

This kind of growth hasn’t gone unnoticed. In just over the last 12 years, three new PROs have emerged. Legendary music manager Irving Azoff founded Global Music Rights in 2013, offering “boutique services” and royalty transparency, building a stable of more than 160 high-profile songwriters such as Bad Bunny and Bruce Springsteen.

AllTrack, founded in 2017, caters to smaller, independent songwriters. Pro Music Rights launched in 2018 and says it represents more than 2.5 million musical works, including AI-created music.

Many songs today are composed by several songwriters, each of whom could be affiliated with a different PRO. Therefore, to legally play those songs, establishments must pay for a license from each PRO. Most PROs offer blanket licensing agreements, meaning that they provide access to their entire repertoires for one fee. And while that gives a particular venue a wide range of musical freedom, it also means bars and restaurants are paying for thousands of songs they may never play or are essentially paying twice, in instances where a song with multiple writers is represented by more than one PRO.

The National Restaurant Assn. said its members pay an average of $4,500 per year to license music, or 0.5% of the average U.S. small restaurant’s total annual sales.

“This may not seem like a large amount, but for an industry that runs on an average pre-tax margin of 3%-5%, this cost is significant, especially since operators don’t clearly understand what they get for this particular investment aside from avoiding the very legitimate threat of a business-ending lawsuit,” the association wrote in public comments to the Copyright Office.

The American Hotel & Lodging Assn. said the mushrooming number of PROs has led to “significant increases in both financial and administrative burdens.” It gave an example of one “major global hotel chain” that reported the cost per hotel for PRO license fees rose by about 200% from 2021-25, with some hotels seeing increases of 400% or more.

A large hotel that hosts occasional live music events could be paying a single PRO $5,000 to $20,000 a year. If it’s paying all of the major PROs, it could be incurring as much as $80,000 in fees, according to the association.

BMI said its licensing fees have remained “relatively steady over the years” and are based on objective criteria that apply equally to all similar businesses. Fees for individual bars and restaurants start at just over $1 a day, according to BMI. Other factors that go into licensing fees include the occupancy rate, and the type of music being played — live, DJed or recorded, for example.

Songwriters’ livelihoods

In the 1917 Supreme Court case that delivered Herbert his victory over Shanley’s, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “If music did not pay, it would be given up.”  He wasn’t only referring to the songwriters, but also to the venues themselves and addressing whether music helped generate revenue. The ruling was a win for Herbert personally but also for ASCAP, which he had helped found, and established the royalty payment system that’s largely still in use today.

A spokesperson for ASCAP said an increase in fees paid to songwriters by venues is an appropriate and inevitable outcome of a growing market. The organization’s musical repertoires have grown exponentially over the years to include tens of millions of works, giving music users more music and more choice, the spokesperson said. ASCAP says about 90 cents of every dollar it collects from licensees is made available for distribution to its members as royalties.

“Licensees are seeking more regulation of PROs because they want to pay songwriters less,” ASCAP Chief Executive Elizabeth Matthews said in a statement to Bloomberg. “If transparency, efficiency and innovation are the goals, more free market competition among PROs is the answer— not unnecessary government intervention.”

Songwriters depend on PROs for their livelihoods, especially in the streaming era. Many individual songwriters wrote to the Copyright Office in defense of the PRO system, expressing concern that government regulation would only diminish their hard-won earnings.

“Every royalty payment I receive represents not just compensation for my work, but my ability to continue creating music that enhances these very businesses,” wrote Joseph Trapanese, a composer who has created scores for film and TV.

Performance royalties make up about half of total publishing revenue, which is collected by PROs and dispersed to songwriters, according to the National Music Publishers’ Assn. Last year, only about 5% of songwriters’ earnings came from bars, restaurants and other venues, a figure that is “significantly undervalued,” according to NMPA executive vice president and General Counsel Danielle Aguirre.

“There is a substantial opportunity for growth here,” she said, speaking at the group’s annual meeting in June.

The organization set a goal to significantly increase that money over the next year, likely by enforcing licensing requirements.

Several establishment owners equated the PRO’s efforts to collect fees to a mob-like shakedown, citing aggressive on-site confrontations and threatening letters.

BMI said it spends a lot of time trying to educate business owners on the value that music brings to their establishment, federal copyright law requirements and the importance of maintaining a music license.

Lawsuits are always a last resort, a spokesperson said, which is why BMI spends sometimes years on educational outreach. If those efforts are ignored, however, an in-person visit might occur, and BMI may take legal action.

Opaque, bureaucratic

Despite their differences, songwriters and businesses agree that the current system is opaque and bureaucratic and could serve both sides better.

Businesses complain about the lack of a comprehensive database of songs and the fact that there is no easy system for reporting which songs they’ve played. Meanwhile, songwriters claim that the sheer volume of music and businesses throughout the U.S. makes it hard to track where and when their work is played and to know whether they’ve been properly compensated.

“What’s really being called to question is, is this system working accurately—is the money that should be finding its way to the songwriters’ pockets finding its way in an efficient manner?” said George Howard, a professor at Berklee College of Music. “And the answer is ‘no.’ There’s no excuse for that with the level of technology we have today.”

BMI and ASCAP joined forces in 2020 to launch Songview, a free digital database showing copyright ownership and administration shares for more than 20 million works. The two PROs are exploring including GMR and SESAC, which would add even more songs to the platform.

Some of the complaints about the PRO licensing system go back decades. Michael Dorf, a producer and founder of the legendary Manhattan music club The Knitting Factory, has faced off with PROs numerous times over his 30-some years as a venue operator. In the 1990s, he signed singer-songwriters who performed at his club to his publishing company and submitted their setlists to the PROs, assuming he and his acts would reap the resulting royalties from their performances.

But no money came in

“We didn’t receive one penny,” Dorf, who’s also the founder and chief executive officer of City Winery, said in an interview. “To me, there is a cost of doing business, and we want to have the artists and the songwriters properly paid — we love that. What’s simply frustrating is to pay money and know it’s not going to the reason why it’s being collected.”

Caleb Shreve, a songwriter and producer who’s worked with the likes of Jennifer Lopez and is also chief executive at Killphonic Rights, a rights collection organization, said he hears music he has produced “all the time in yoga spots and bars, and I’ve never seen them on publishing statements.” Many songwriters are convinced the current system favors the biggest artists at the expense of middle-tier and emerging songwriters. Because of the blanket licensing system, BMI and ASCAP don’t track individual song use by those licensees and instead rely on proxy data, like what’s popular on the radio or through streaming platforms, to divvy up those collected fees.

Sometimes radio hits mimic what’s played in an arena, restaurant or bar, but not always.

ASCAP said it tracks trillions of performances every year across all media platforms and only uses sample surveys or proxy data when obtaining actual performance data isn’t feasible or is cost prohibitive.

Technology could be a way to solve the current issues without regulation. London-based Audoo is one company leading the way.

Founded by musician Ryan Edwards in 2018 after he heard his music being played in a department store and discovered he wasn’t getting paid for it, the growing startup uses proprietary listening devices it places in cafes, gyms and other public venues to recognize and log songs. It uploads the data to the cloud, ensuring every artist — not just the chart toppers — receives compensation for their work.

The company has attracted investment from music icons including Elton John and Adele, and its devices are used by PROs in the U.K. and Australia. It made its first foray into the US earlier this year, placing listening devices in about 180 establishments around the Denver area in a test run.The collected data underscored that what’s played in public places doesn’t necessarily mirror what’s on the popular playlists or radio and streaming platforms. Edwards likens the idea of using proxies to political polling — directionally helpful but not precise.

Audoo found that 77,000 unique tracks were played around Denver over two months, split among 26,000 artists, according to data viewed by Bloomberg News. On average, only 6.6% of the top-40 songs played in the venues also appeared on Billboard’s top radio-play chart.

In markets where Audoo has partnered with venues, Edwards said business owners have been proud to support particular songwriters and the music business writ large.

“All of a sudden it went from a push-and-pull of, ‘Why do I owe you money?’ to, ‘OK, I can understand music is funding the people who create,’” Edwards said.

Carman and Soni write for Bloomberg.

A British expat proved just how far a fiver can get you in Benidorm after finding a ‘hidden gem’ in the Old Town where you can fill up on beer and tapas without breaking the bank

A British woman who has lived in Benidorm for 40 years found a “hidden gem” bar – and the price of beer and tapas was “outstanding”.

Michelle Baker used to run a newspaper in the holiday hotspot for two decades and she now shares valuable information on her Benidormforever Facebook page. And it was here that the mum, who has raised her children in Spain, revealed her latest find. After strolling through the Old Town, Michelle discovered Rumbo Bar, which she said has been there since 1968, and was recently taken over by Juani and Nico.

Writing on her page, she said: “Regular followers know I’m a HUGE supporter of the small bars, and in the Old Town yesterday I stumbled across this little gem; Bar Rumbo.”

She added: “Realising their location is just off the busy square that overlooks the little Mal Pas beach is slightly hidden, the couple have put their heart and soul into making their pet friendly pub as welcoming as possible, with quirky decoration, a selection of board games and they’ve some outstanding offers too.”

And as for the incredible prices, Michelle explained how a beer and two tapas cost just €4.90 (approx £4). A glass of wine meanwhile is just €2.20 while a coffee is priced at €1.50. For something fancier, the owners also sell two cocktails for €10.

Michelle pointed out that the air conditioned space provided a “peaceful escape” from the raucous part of Benidorm.

Explaining why she was keen on highlighting it, she said: “I love to point out the hidden places in the hope more of you will support them before they are all swallowed up by the big boys; your choice to pop in for a round or two of drinks makes all the difference to their day and it shows in their eagerness to please their customers.”

Speaking to Michelle during her pleasant visit, Juani joked that he had no music playing in the bar, but being a musician, he sometimes sings to customers.

He added: “What we really want is for people to feel welcome and meet new friends and they do. Once they find us they come back night after night.”

After posting on her page, one person replied: “In all the years visiting Benidorm I have never seen this bar and we always stay and eat, drink in the old town. I will certainly be looking for it next time we visit.”

Another said: “We used to live above the Rumbo bar it’s a lovely little bar I know the original owner and his son who took over. Miss living in the old town such good memories.”

A third went with: “I don’t want to be in a bar full of English people I know that sounds bad but it’s how I like to spend my time when over in old town.”

Following a surge in arrests by armed, masked federal immigration agents in unmarked cars, some California Democrats are backing a new bill in Congress that would bar officials from covering their faces while conducting raids.

The No Masks for ICE Act, introduced by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-New York) and co-sponsored by more than a dozen Democrats, would make it illegal for federal agents to cover their faces while conducting immigration enforcement unless the masks were required for their safety or health.

The bill would also require agents to clearly display their name and agency affiliation on their clothes during arrests and enforcement operations.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank), who is co-sponsoring the bill, said Tuesday that the legislation would create the same level of accountability for federal agents as for uniformed police in California, who have been required by law for more than three decades to have their name or badge number visible.

“When agents are masked and anonymous, you cannot have accountability,” Friedman said. “That’s not how democracy works. That’s not how our country works.”

The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to set up discipline procedures for officers who did not comply and report annually on those numbers to Congress.

A DHS spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The department has previously warned of a spike in threats and harassment against immigration agents.

The mask bill has no Republican co-sponsors, meaning its chances of getting a hearing in the GOP-controlled House are slim.

“I would think that there’s Republicans out there who are probably hearing the same thing that I’m hearing from my constituents: ‘I don’t like the idea of people jumping out of a truck, carrying very large guns with masks over their faces, and I have no idea who they are,’” Friedman said.

Friedman said she hoped that Republicans concerned about governmental overreach and the so-called “deep state” — the idea that there is a secretive, coordinated network inside the government — would support the bill too.

The proposal comes after weeks of immigration raids in Southern California conducted by masked federal agents dressed in street clothes or camouflage fatigues, driving unmarked vehicles and not displaying their names, badge numbers or agency affiliations. Social media sites have been flooded with videos of agents violently detaining people, including dragging a taco stand vendor by her arm and tossing smoke bombs into a crowd of onlookers.

The raids have coincided with an increase in people impersonating federal immigration agents. Last week, police said they arrested a Huntington Park man driving a Dodge Durango SUV equipped with red-and-blue lights and posing as a Border Patrol agent.

In Raleigh, N.C., a 37-year-old man was charged with rape, kidnapping and impersonating a law enforcement officer after police said he broke into a Motel 6, told a woman that he was an immigration officer and that he would have her deported if she didn’t have sex with him.

And in Houston, police arrested a man who they say blocked another driver’s car, pretended to be an ICE agent, conducted a fake traffic stop and stole the man’s identification and money.

Burbank Mayor Nikki Perez said Tuesday that city officials have received questions from residents like, “How can I know if the masked man detaining me is ICE or a kidnapper? And who can protect me if a man with a gun refuses to identify himself?”

Those issues came to a “boiling point” last weekend, Perez said, when a man confronted a woman at the Mystic Museum in Burbank, asked to see her documents and tried to “act as a federal immigration agent.” Staff and patrons stepped in to help, Perez said, but the incident left behind a “newfound sense of fear, an uncertainty.”

“Why is it that we hold our local law enforcement, who put their lives on the line every day, to a much higher standard than federal immigration officers?” Perez said.

The bill in the House follows a similar bill introduced in Sacramento last month by state Sen. Scott Wiener that would bar immigration agents from wearing masks, although it’s unclear whether states can legally dictate the conduct or uniforms of federal agents.

Julie and Todd Chrisley were not exactly prepared to learn they had been pardoned by the president.

“Unfortunately, most of the news that you get in prison is bad news,” Julie Chrisley told Lara Trump in a family interview set to air Saturday on Fox News Channel. So when she got the good news, her fellow inmates didn’t immediately understand what they were seeing.

“They’re like, ‘Are you OK?’” Julie said.

In fact, she hadn’t been 100% OK when she first heard from daughter Savannah that President Trump had signed off on the creme de la creme of get-out-of-jail-free cards.

“I just busted out crying” when her daughter broke the news, Julie said. “Everyone was looking around, and then I just hung up. I was so nervous that I just hung up.”

Savannah was the one who appealed to the president to free her parents. During the Republican National Convention, she gave a speech about the “rogue prosecutors” who put her parents behind bars.

At least Julie hung up on her daughter and not POTUS. But now the folks around her were asking her if she was OK. “I’m like, ‘I am!’” she said, grasping her husband and daughter’s hands as she recalled the moment. “I’m getting out of here!”

Julie and husband Todd, the Georgia couple who gained fame through “Chrisley Knows Best,” the USA Network series that showcased their luxurious lifestyle and zany family dynamic, were back in their bleach-blond glory sitting with two of their five kids, Savannah and son Chase, on Lara Trump’s couch.

There had been no hair color for the inmates after they were sentenced to 12 years (him) and seven years (her) for tax evasion, conspiracy and wire fraud. He was sent to a federal prison in Pensacola, Fla., while she was doing time in Lexington, Ky. Probation after incarceration awaited them both. The pardons changed all that.

Todd Chrisley was a little cooler than his wife had been when the news came his way. He was walking through FPC Pensacola when someone stopped him and told him he just got pardoned.

“I said, ‘Yeah, OK’ and I just went right on walking,” apparently dismissing what he’d just heard as trash talk. He walked all the way back to his dorm, only to have a corrections officer come by soon after and ask him if he was “good.”

“I said, ‘As good as I can be,’” he told Lara Trump with a little snark in his delivery. But the CO was serious.

The officer told the reality star that he had been pardoned and that he’d been sent to check on Chrisley to make sure he was OK.

Todd recalled saying, “They don’t need to be worried about me now! If I’m pardoned, I’m great!”

The Chrisley patriarch also shared how it felt when he saw wife Julie for the first time in 28 months.

“When I hugged her the first time, it was like I was home. … We have changed,” he said. “And if we did not change in these 28 months, it would have been wasted.”

Todd gave it up to the Almighty as well. “God touched President Trump’s heart,” he said. “God led the people to advocate for us. And so I’m grateful, because every night I would pray that God would return me home to my children. And he did that, so I’m grateful.”

Both Chrisleys have said they intend to advocate in the future for prisoners who are still behind bars.

“My View With Lara Trump,” which includes her full interview with Todd, Julie, Savannah and Chase Chrisley, airs Saturday at 6 p.m. local time (9 p.m. Eastern) on Fox News Channel.

The images are jarring. Across the country, federal law enforcement officers in plain clothes and wearing ski masks and balaclavas are seizing and detaining protesters, students and even elected officials. These scenes evoke images of government thugs in violent regimes disappearing opponents.

This is not how policing should look in a democratic society. Which is why everyone — regardless of political affiliation or stance on immigration enforcement — should support bills being introduced in Congress to address this growing problem. Three pieces of legislation — under consideration or expected soon — would prohibit masking by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including one Thursday from Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) and one expected Friday from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). These are obvious, common-sense measures that shouldn’t need to be codified into law — but given the reality today, and what’s being done on streets across the country, they clearly do.

In the United States, those tasked with enforcing the law are public servants, answerable to the people through their elected representatives. Wearing uniforms and insignia, and publicly identifying themselves, are what make clear an officer’s authority and enable public accountability.

That is why U.S. policing agencies generally have policies requiring officers to wear a badge or other identifier that includes their name or another unique mark, like a badge number. That is why — not so long ago — one of us wrote a letter on behalf of the Justice Department to the police chief in Ferguson, Mo., to ensure that officers were readily identifiable during protests. This letter was sent by the federal government, in the middle of the federal civil rights investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, because ensuring this “basic component of transparency and accountability” was deemed too important to hold off raising until the end of the investigation. Exceptions have long been made for scenarios such as undercover work — but it has long been understood that, as a general rule, American law enforcement officers will identify themselves and show their faces.

This foundational democratic norm is now at risk. In February, masked ICE officers in riot gear raided an apartment complex in Denver, one of the first times Americans saw agents hide their faces on the job. In March, the practice came to widespread attention when Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched by plainclothes ICE officers, one of them masked, while walking down a street in Somerville, Mass. Throughout the spring, bystanders captured videos of masked or plainclothes ICE enforcement actions from coast to coast, in small towns and big cities.

ICE says it allows this so officers can protect themselves from being recognized and harassed or even assaulted. ICE’s arguments just won’t wash. Its claims about how many officers have been assaulted are subject to serious question. Even if they were not, though, masked law enforcement is simply unacceptable.

At the most basic level, masked, anonymous officers present a safety concern for both the individuals being arrested and the agents. People are understandably far more likely to disregard instructions or even fight back when they think they’re being abducted by someone who is not a law enforcement officer. If the goal is to obtain compliance, masks are counterproductive. It’s far safer to encourage cooperation by appealing to one’s authority as a law enforcement officer — which almost always works.

Related, there is a very real and growing threat of law enforcement impersonation. There has been a disturbing uptick in reported incidents of “ICE impersonations,” in which private individuals dress as ICE or law enforcement officials to exploit the trust and authority invested in law enforcement. Just this month, the assailant in the recent assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker was posing as a police officer. Other examples are abounding across the country. As Princeton University noted in a recent advisory, when law enforcement officers are not clearly identifying themselves, it becomes even easier for impostors to pose as law enforcement. Replicas of ICE jackets have become a bestseller on Amazon.

Most fundamentally, masked detentions undermine law enforcement legitimacy. Government agencies’ legitimacy is essential for effective policing, and legitimacy requires transparency and accountability. When officers hide their identities, it sends the clear message that they do not value those principles, and in fact view them as a threat.

Federal law currently requires certain clear accountability measures by federal immigration enforcement officials, including that officers must identify themselves as officers and state that the person under arrest is, in fact, under arrest as well as the reason. That should sound familiar and be a relief to those of us who are grateful not to live in a secret police state.

But those words are cold comfort if you are confronted by someone in street clothes and a ski mask — with no way to know if they are who they say or whom to hold accountable if they violate your rights.

ICE officials cannot be allowed to continue to enforce our laws while concealing their identities. Transparency and accountability are what separate democracy from authoritarianism and legitimate law enforcement from the secret police in antidemocratic regimes. The images we are seeing are unrecognizable for the United States, and should not be tolerable for anyone.

Barry Friedman is a professor of law at New York University and author of “Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission.” Christy Lopez is a professor from practice at Georgetown University School of Law. She led the police practices unit in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice from 2010-2017.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states may exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from providing medical screenings and other healthcare for women on Medicaid.

The court’s conservative majority reversed the longstanding rule that said Medicaid patients may obtain medical care from any qualified provider.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Medicaid Act does not give patients an “individual right” to the provider of their choice.

The dispute has turned on abortion. Medicaid is funded by the federal government and the states. For decades, conservative states have argued their funds should not be used in Planned Parenthood clinics because some of those clinics perform abortions.

But until now, the federal government and the courts had said that Medicaid patients can go to any qualified provider for healthcare.

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision “will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

Planned Parenthood clinics provide cancer screenings, birth control medical screenings, pregnancy testing, contraception and other healthcare services.

Congress pays most of the state’s costs for Medicaid, and it says “any individual eligible for medical assistance” may receive care from any provider who is “qualified to perform the service.”

Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, called the decision “an attack on our healthcare and our freedom to make our own decisions about our bodies and lives. By allowing states to block Medicaid patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Court has chosen politics over people and cruelty over compassion.”

Three years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and ruled states may prohibit nearly all abortions.

Nonetheless, South Carolina continued its legal fight to prevent Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood’s clinics in Charleston and Columbia.

Former Gov. Henry McMaster, who issued the ban on Planned Parenthood in 2018, said he did so to protect “his state’s sovereign interests.”

Critics of the move said the state has a severe shortage of doctors and medical personnel who treat low-income patients on Medicaid.

When Janie and Stephanie Ellingwood went to a local brewery one night to watch a U.S. Women’s National Team soccer game with some friends, they didn’t think it would be a big deal to ask the staff to turn on the sound.

The bartenders had always been friendly to the married couple, who frequented the bar at least a few times a week. And they were the only patrons in the small room, situated away from the main viewing area where the volume was on full blast. So they were surprised when the staff curtly shot down their request without any explanation.

Opened in early June to coincide with Pride Month, Untamed Spirits is the first women’s sports bar in the city of Los Angeles.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

The Ellingwoods continued watching the nail-biting game with subtitles, but as it got more and more exciting, customers began spilling over to their side of the bar. Before long, the small room was packed.

“We were all cheering,” says Janie. “We all gave each other high-fives.”

The wife-and-wife duo took over another sports bar in Silver Lake and turned it into Untamed Spirits, the first women’s sports bar in L.A.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

Still, the staff refused to turn up the volume.

The experience left the Ellingwoods, who are diehard fans of the L.A. Sparks and season-ticket holders for Angel City Football Club, wondering why there weren’t any bars in Los Angeles where they could comfortably watch women’s sports without feeling ostracized. So they decided to create their own.

After months of searching for a location, the wife-and-wife duo took over another sports bar in Silver Lake — formerly known as Trophy Wife — and turned it into Untamed Spirits, the first women’s sports bar in the city of L.A.

Opened in early June to coincide with Pride Month, Untamed Spirits joins a short list of bars in the U.S. dedicated to women’s sports, including Portland’s Sports Bra, which is expanding to four new cities including Las Vegas and Boston; Rough & Tumble in Seattle; Minnesota’s A Bar of Their Own; and Rikki’s in San Francisco. Long Beach’s Watch Me! Sports Bar, which opened its doors last July, was the first in California.

Stephanie, 37, who played professional golf for a few years, felt that L.A. needed something like this. “Something that’s a little bit classier, that isn’t sticky when you put your arms on the bar,” she describes.

“For once, I want to watch a game at the bar with sound on instead of some random spot in the corner,” Janie, 34, adds.

The bar is sleek and modern — a neon pink sign reads “Welcome to the Untamed Era,” and whimsical black and white illustrations cover a few of the walls.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

On a recent Tuesday night, Janie was behind the counter pouring drinks, including their signature Angel City pink punch, for patrons sitting at the bar, which was adorned with rainbow flags and an Angel City Football Club flag. Meanwhile, Stephanie was floating around the space, checking on customers. The couple, who met while playing volleyball together at La Quinta High School, also run a made-to-order croissant bakery based in Orange County and remodel and manage residential properties throughout Southern California.

The bar is sleek and modern — a neon pink sign reads “Welcome to the Untamed Era,” and whimsical black and white illustrations cover a few of the walls. Menstrual products are displayed on the bathroom counter. The spacious patio is filled with plants and a sign that says “Watch Women’s Sports Here.” (There’s a TV in nearly every corner, so there’s no bad seat.) Although Untamed Spirits specializes in women’s sports of all kinds — even the more niche ones like kayaking, Janie says — the bar also plays men’s sports.

“Some people might call it a trend, but it’s not a trend,” Janie says. “I believe it’s a movement.”

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

Sitting at a table with a date and two friends, Marina Sobreviñas, 31, says she’s found that queer bars like Hi Tops in Los Feliz are more likely to play women’s sports, but she felt that “it’s about time” there is a spot dedicated to them. She recalls her experience trying to watch the FIFA Women’s World Cup at a bar.

Untamed Spirits offers bar food with an international twist with dishes like kimchi fried rice.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

Untamed Spirits sells nonalcoholic and alcoholic drinks including margaritas and a signature Angel City pink punch.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

“There was like, one World Cup TV out of the 10 TVs they had going, and it was sort of fascinating,” she says. “Like, ‘Am I’m the only one wearing a jersey today? OK, no problem.’”

Sobreviñas says that women’s sports are just as exciting as men’s sports.

Lisa Marie Ornelas, 30, agrees. “Women [athletes], in a way, have a little bit more to prove,” she says.

Untamed Spirits arrives in L.A. at a time when interest in women’s sports is expanding at a “meteoric pace” across the globe, according to Nielsen. The 2024 NCAA women’s basketball tournament averaged nearly 19 million viewers (with a peak of 24 million viewers for the final game between Iowa and South Carolina), an 89% bump from the previous year. The WNBA draft audience jumped 511%, and overall interest in the league grew 29% between 2023 and 2024. The National Women’s Soccer League saw a 17% boost in interest between 2023 and 2024. With the heightened interest, ad spending also increased: In 2024, TV advertisers spent $244 million on women’s sports, a year-over-year increase of 139%, according to TV marketing firm EDO.

Untamed Spirits has indoor seating and a spacious patio where patrons can enjoy sports of all kinds.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

“Women in general have been playing great sports for a long time,” says Stephanie. “I just think the right people who have the ability to put them in the spotlight are finally noticing.”

More women’s sports bars are expected to open throughout the country. Jax Diener, who opened Watch Me! Sports Bar in Long Beach with her wife about a year ago, recalls when women’s sports weren’t aired on TV at all. She went to the first WNBA game at the Forum in 1997.

Untamed Spirits recently became an official bar partner of the Angel City Football Club.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

“We used to come home after those games that were so exciting and turn on the sports that night to see the replays, and they weren’t even mentioned,” says Diener. “It was as if the league didn’t even exist.”

Diener says she was excited when she heard about another women’s sports bar opening in Southern California. “To me, it was really important for them to know that we’re in this together,” she says, adding that she has a text thread with other women’s sports bar owners where they share advice. “This is not a competition. This is women supporting women.”

Untamed Spirits recently became an official bar partner of the Angel City Football Club, which has a majority female-led ownership group that includes Natalie Portman, Abby Wambach and America Ferrera. The Ellingwoods will host their first watch party on Sept. 7 when the ACFC takes on Gotham FC.

Janie and Stephanie, who’ve been at the bar every day since it opened, say they are excited to eventually distill their own spirits, host more events and watch parties in the space and foster community among women’s sports lovers.

“Some people might call it a trend, but it’s not a trend,” Janie says. “I believe it’s a movement.”

Janie, left, and Stephanie Ellingwood say they are excited to eventually distill their own spirits, host more events and watch parties in the space and foster community among women’s sports lovers.

(Alyson Aliano / For The Times)

The prominent legal organisation has called the US president’s executive orders against law firms unconstitutional.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has sued the administration of US President Donald Trump, seeking an order that would prevent the White House from pursuing what it called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday in a federal court in Washington, DC, alleged that the administration violated the United States Constitution by issuing a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and employees.

According to the complaint, those executive orders were used to “to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like”.

Dozens of executive agencies and US officials are named in the suit, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kash Patel and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

In a statement, the ABA — the country’s largest voluntary association for lawyers — called Trump’s attacks on law firms “uniquely destructive”.

“Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases, the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on the executive branch,” the association wrote.

Four law firms have separately sued the administration over President Trump’s orders, which stripped their lawyers of security clearances and restricted their access to government officials and federal contracting work.

Four different judges in Washington have sided with the firms and temporarily or permanently barred Trump’s orders against them. One of the firms that sued and won a preliminary victory, Susman Godfrey, is representing the ABA in Monday’s lawsuit.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields responded to Monday’s lawsuit with a statement calling it “clearly frivolous”.

He added that the ABA has no power over the president’s discretion to award government contracts and security clearances to law firms.

“The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,” Fields said.

Despite Trump’s court losses, nine law firms have struck deals with the president, pledging to offer nearly $1bn in free legal services to stave off similar executive orders.

Monday’s lawsuit escalates a clash between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has cut some government funding to the group and has moved to restrict its role in vetting federal judicial nominees.

In March, Bondi — the chief law enforcement officer in the US — warned the group that it could lose its role in accrediting law schools unless it cancels a requirement related to student diversity.