claiming

Four years after the “Rust” movie shooting, New Mexico officials have moved Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution to federal court.

This week’s filing is the latest twist in the long legal saga after the October 2021 on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, the 67-year-old star and a producer of the western film, had been facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge for his role in Hutchins’ accidental shooting. But the judge overseeing Baldwin’s case abruptly dismissed the charge against him during his July 2024 trial after concluding that prosecutors withheld evidence that may have been helpful to his legal team.

Six months later, Baldwin sued New Mexico’s district attorney and special prosecutors, asserting malicious prosecution. The actor claimed he had been made a celebrity scapegoat because of the intense media pressure on local authorities to solve the high-profile case.

His lawsuit targeted New Mexico special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey, 1st Judicial Dist. Atty. Mary Carmack-Altwies and Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputies, who led the investigation into Hutchins’ death.

The defendants have denied Baldwin’s allegations.

Baldwin’s wrongful prosecution suit was first filed in New Mexico court in Santa Fe.

On Tuesday, the defendants, including Morrissey, exercised their legal right to shift the case to federal court. The decision was made, in part, because “Mr. Baldwin brought federal civil rights claims in his lawsuit,” said Albuquerque attorney Luis Robles, who represents the defendants.

In addition, Baldwin does not live in New Mexico, where the case was filed.

Baldwin could object to the move and petition for it to be brought back to state court. On Wednesday, his team was not immediately available for comment.

A New Mexico judge had dismissed Baldwin’s malicious prosecution claims in July, citing 90 days of inactivity in the case. Baldwin’s legal team petitioned to get the case reinstated and the judge agreed to the request.

That prompted the defendants’ move to shift the case to the higher court.

During his Santa Fe trial last year, Baldwin’s lawyers had sought to turn the focus away from whether Baldwin pulled his gun’s trigger in the accidental shooting to where the lethal bullet came from.

Baldwin’s attorneys repeatedly accused law enforcement officers and prosecutors of bungling the case, including by allegedly hiding potential evidence — a batch of bullets that they said may have been related to the one that killed Hutchins.

GERRY Adams will be blocked from claiming taxpayer-funded compensation under changes to the law today.

The former Sinn Féin leader was on track to receive a government payout for his detention in the 1970s.

1

But a new Troubles Bill will now ban him and around 400 other largely republican former-detainees from receiving public cash.

It comes after an unexpected Supreme Court ruling in 2020 on historical detentions in Northern Ireland risked forcing ministers to splurge vast sums of money on individuals who claimed they were wrongfully detained during the Troubles.

The landmark case, brought by Adams, found his initial detention under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) was unlawful because a junior minister signed the order, not the Secretary of State.

This pivotal decision opened the floodgates for thousands of compensation claims for imprisonment and quashed convictions.
Later, Mr. Adams won a court battle in 2023 that ruled he was wrongly denied compensation after his convictions for trying to escape jail in the 1970s were quashed.

Today, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn will introduce new legislation to Parliament to clarify that the relevant law always permitted junior ministers to sign the ICOs and, therefore, ensure no compensation will be paid.

A government source told The Sun: “The last government completely failed to successfully address this issue.

“Today we are making it clear in the law that detentions were legitimate and lawful.

“A result of this will be that those previously eligible will not get a single penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.”

MADELEINE McCann’s sister is giving evidence today against a stalker who turned up at the family home claiming to be the missing youngster.

Julia Wandelt allegedly sent unwanted emails, made multiple phone calls and even turned up at the home of Kate and Gerry McCann.

7

7

7

The 24-year-old falsely claimed she was Madeleine, who vanished on holiday in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in 2007.

She believed she had memories of the three-year-old’s childhood and disappearance before being supposedly trafficked to Poland.

Madeleine’s brother Sean and sister Amelie, both 20, are giving evidence today at Leicester Crown Court.

The twins, who were sleeping in the same room as their sibling when she vanished, have never publicly spoken about Madeleine.

It comes after their parents yesterday took to the stand to open up about their daughter’s disappearance for the first time in eight years.

Wandelt yesterday had to be escorted from the courtroom after yelling “why are you doing this to me?” at Kate.

The mum had told jurors how Wandelt and her co-accused Karen Spragg, 61, showed up at the family home in December 2024.

She said she was unloading the car in the dark and immediately felt “distressed” at the situation.

The mum added: “[Wandelt] called me mum”.

Kate told how the second woman was “slightly more aggressive” and was asking: “Don’t you want to find your daughter?”

She said she went inside and felt “invaded in my home” as the two women continued to bang on the front door.

Wandelt then posted a letter to the next day to “mum” and signed from “Madeleine”, the court heard.

Kate said: “It was the thing I wanted the most – through all this pain – for Madeleine to be back and calling me ‘mum’.”

She continued: “Referring to me as mum was hard and she said a few times about Gerry being controlling – which had no truth.”

Kate told jurors she first became aware of Wandelt in 2022 after she phoned Gerry at the hospital he works at.

The mum said Wandelt had also emailed the Find Madeleine campaign but she received no direct contact herself until 2024.

7

Kate said police officers investigating Madeleine’s disappearance sent her and Gerry a photo of the alleged stalker after she claimed she was the missing youngster.

Both parents concluded she was not Madeleine but Wandelt continued to contact them – claiming: “I never lied, I’m not crazy, please let me prove it.”

She also allegedly left a voicemail on Kate’s phone, saying: “If I am her, then everything should be OK but if I’m not, which you probably think, then I’ll leave you alone.

“I know my accent is Polish because I live here… I’m not pretty like Madeleine but I know what I know and I know and what I remember.

“Please give me a chance, you don’t give up on your daughter, I’m not crazy.”

But Kate said today: “I know I can’t say what Madeleine looks like now, but I know I’d recognise her.”

The mum said after the disappearance of her daughter, and knowing that her mobile number was in the public domain, she did not change it “on principle”.

She added: “I didn’t feel I should have to do that.”

Kate told the court she “didn’t want to engage” but almost agreed to a DNA test as Wandelt’s campaign was “getting to me”.

She added: “I almost wanted a DNA test to put it to bed… from the photographs.. I knew it wasn’t her.”

The mum said the “final straw” came when she discovered Wandelt had allegedly messaged her 20-year-old daughter, Amelie.

Kate told jurors she went to police to discuss the case after that.

She said since the arrest of the defendants, her stress levels had gone down.

Kate added she did not want anything like this to “put extra focus” on Sean and Amelie.

“What they’ve had to deal with, and still have to deal with, is a lot and we try to keep that to a minimum,” the mum said.

Gerry’s voice cracked as he also gave evidence today and he grew emotional when discussing his other children Sean and Amelie.

He said: “After everything that has happened with Madeleine we want to protect them.”

Gerry added: “We want them to be known as Amelie McCann and Sean McCann not missing Madeleine McCann’s brother and sister.”

Jurors heard previously how Wandelt tried to persuade “anybody prepared to listen” that she was the British toddler.

The alleged stalker, from Lubin in south west Poland, burst into tears and had to take a 10-minute break after the court was told she is not Madeleine.

Mr Duck added: “There could never have been a legitimate belief by Julia Wandelt that she was Madeleine McCann.

“At the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, Julia Wandelt was not of the same age.”

‘Stalking’ campaign

The court heard she compared herself to images of Madeleine and tried to convince the younger McCann daughter, Amelie, they were related.

She even signed letters to the McCann family from Madeleine, it was said.

Mr Duck said the “well-planned campaign of harassment” had a “substantial adverse effect on the day-to-day activities” of the McCann parents.

The court heard Wandelt initially called the hospital where they work and emailed the Met Police investigation codenamed Operation Grange.

She later messaged Gerry: “In June 2022 I started to think maybe I am Madeleine McCann. I am not joking, please take this seriously.”

Jurors heard she went on to call and message Kate over 60 times during a single day in April 2024, writing: “I never lied. I am not crazy. Please let me prove it.”

Recorded voicemail messages were played in court where Wandelt was heard pleading: “I beg you, you are my real mother, I remember you and our home, give me a chance to prove it

“You are mummy. You know it’s me. I remember how you hugged me and a pink teddy bear.”

Mr Duck said: “One of the many tragic consequences for Madeleine’s parents has been their consequent inability to escape that unwanted glare of publicity that came with that tragedy. 

“Their faces have become immediately recognisable to a worldwide audience and the attention they have received has not always been compassionate. Far from it. 

“They have been embraced by millions of people around the world who sympathise with their position. But there remains a group of individuals which continues to fail to acknowledge their plight and perpetuates conspiracy theories which simply heap further misery upon them. 

“Unfortunately, these two defendants belong to that latter group – but as far as they are concerned, their observations and behaviour are not an offhand comments or a Facebook/Instagram posting, but a well-planned campaign of harassment which extended, in Julia Wandelt’s case, for over two-and-half years.”

Wandelt and co-accused Karen Spragg, 61, from Cardiff, deny stalking causing serious alarm and distress to Kate and Gerry between June 2022 and February this year.

The trial continues.

7

7

7

There are certain benefits to being married in retirement. For one thing, it’s nice to have somebody’s company at a time when you’re not working and may find yourself getting lonely and bored.

Retirement is also a time when a lot of people try to ramp up on travel. And it can be more enjoyable to have a travel partner than to take your dream trips on your own.

Image source: Getty Images.

When it comes to the financial side of retirement, being married also has its advantages. If you and your spouse each have some savings, you can pool your resources for a larger income.

Plus, if you’re married, it could mean that you’re eligible to receive spousal benefits from Social Security. And that extra money could come in very handy. But if you’re looking to claim spousal benefits from Social Security, it’s important to understand the ins and outs. Here are three misunderstandings you must get to the bottom of if you think spousal benefits are something you’ll end up filing for.

1. You can only claim spousal benefits if you’re married

You may start off retirement as a married couple only to decide to dissolve your relationship a few years down the line. Sometimes, too much togetherness can unveil differences that are just too difficult to overcome.

You might assume that if you get divorced, you won’t be eligible for Social Security spousal benefits. But if you were married for at least 10 years before that divorce, and you’re not remarried, then those spousal benefits should still be on the table.

2. You can only claim spousal benefits if you didn’t work

The nice thing about Social Security is that it will pay spousal benefits to people who didn’t work. But even if you did work, you may still be eligible for spousal benefits.

Let’s say you worked enough to qualify for Social Security, but your wages were much lower than your spouse’s. If the spousal benefit you’re entitled to is greater than the benefit you’re entitled to based on your own earnings record, then you’ll get that spousal benefit.

However, if your personal benefit is the larger number, that’s what Social Security will pay you. This system is more than fair, as it basically allows you to collect whichever benefit puts the most money in your pocket each month. The only thing you can’t do is double dip by collecting a spousal benefit plus your own benefit at the same time.

3. You can grow your spousal benefits by delaying your Social Security claim

If you’re claiming Social Security on your own wage history, there’s an upside to delaying your claim past full retirement age, which is 67 for anyone born in 1970 or later. For each year you do, until you turn 70, your monthly benefit gets a permanent 8% boost.

But when you’re claiming spousal benefits, there’s no sense in delaying past full retirement age. That’s because you can’t grow a spousal benefit the same way you can grow a benefit based on your own earnings record.

Social Security spousal benefits max out at 50% of what your spouse is eligible for at their full retirement age. If you claim them before reaching your full retirement age, they’ll be reduced. But they also can’t grow beyond 50% of what your spouse gets at their full retirement age.

You may end up relying on Social Security to provide quite a bit of your retirement income. So it’s important to understand how the program’s spousal benefits work, especially since they can differ from how regular retirement benefits work. Knowing the rules inside and out could prevent you from making a big mistake you regret later on.

There’s a reason 62 tends to be a common age to sign up for Social Security — it’s the earliest age you’re allowed to take benefits. If you’re thinking of filing for Social Security at 62, it’s important to understand exactly what that means for you and your family financially. Here are three key pieces of information to keep in mind.

1. You’ll reduce your monthly benefits for life

You’re entitled to your complete Social Security benefit without a reduction at full retirement age, which is 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later. You can start getting those benefits at 62, but the Social Security Administration will reduce them if you sign up before full retirement age.

Image source: Getty Images.

One thing you must know is that any reduction in Social Security you face by claiming early is a permanent one. And if you sign up at 62 with a full retirement age of 67, you’re looking at slashing your monthly benefits by 30% for life. If you don’t have a lot of retirement savings, that’s a hit you may not be able to afford easily.

2. You’ll leave your spouse with a smaller survivor benefit

If you’re married, the financial decisions you make regarding your retirement can significantly impact your spouse. And that extends to Social Security.

If you’re the higher earner in your household, your spouse might depend heavily on Social Security survivor benefits if they end up outliving you. But if you claim benefits at 62 and reduce them substantially in the process, it could mean leaving your spouse with that much less money once you’re no longer around. That could cause them a world of stress and make it difficult for them to keep up with their expenses.

3. You’ll be subject to an earnings test if you’re still working

You don’t have to stop working to claim Social Security. And once you reach full retirement age, you can earn any amount of money from a job without it negatively impacting your Social Security benefits if you’re collecting them.

But if you claim Social Security before full retirement age, you’ll be subject to an earnings test if you’re still working. And exceeding its limit could result in withheld benefits.

In 2025, you can earn up to $23,400 without risking the withholding of your Social Security benefits. Beyond that point, you’ll have $1 in Social Security withheld per $2 of earnings.

Now you should know that if you have benefits withheld for exceeding the earnings-test limit, they’re not forfeited completely. You should get the money back in the form of larger monthly benefits once full retirement age arrives.

However, it may not make sense to reduce your benefits by claiming them at 62 only to then have most of that income source withheld due to earning too much. Run the numbers to see how much Social Security, if any, you’re likely to lose temporarily.

Though it’s easy to see why 62 is such an appealing age to file for Social Security, it may not be the optimal age for you. Or maybe it is. The key, either way, is to understand the ramifications of taking benefits that early and to make sure you’re prepared to deal with the aftermath.

If you’re planning to take Social Security in 2025, you’re likely nearing retirement. While that’s an exciting chapter in life, even small mistakes can sometimes throw a wrench in your plans — so it’s critical to ensure you have a strong plan heading into your senior years.

There’s not necessarily a right or wrong Social Security strategy, but there is one aspect that trips many retirees up: knowing how your claiming age will affect your lifetime benefit.

Your benefit will be locked in for life

The age you file for benefits will have an immediate and lifelong impact on your benefit amount. However, many people are unaware of just how much their decision will affect their monthly income.

Image source: Getty Images.

According to a 2025 survey from the Nationwide Retirement Institute, only 21% of U.S. adults can correctly name their full retirement age (FRA) — which is the age at which you’re entitled to your full benefit based on your work history. Your FRA will depend on your birth year, but everyone’s will fall between ages 66 and 67.

Filing before your FRA will result in a reduced payment, which is also a point of confusion for many people. The survey found that 40% of Americans believe that if they file for benefits early, their payments will automatically go up once they reach their FRA. In reality, though, these reductions are permanent, and those smaller payments will be locked in for life.

These reductions can be significant, too. If you have an FRA of 67 years old, filing at 62 will slash your checks by 30%. The average retired worker receives around $588 less per month at age 62 compared to age 67, according to 2024 data from the Social Security Administration.

Data source: Social Security Administration. Table by author.

Not knowing exactly how your age will affect your lifetime benefit amount is a simple mistake to make, so you’re in good company if you’re among the 40% of Americans in this boat. But if you’re heading into retirement expecting your benefit to increase by hundreds of dollars per month in a few years, it could be a costly mistake.

The best move you can make right now

Before you begin claiming benefits, one of the best things you can do is check your estimated benefit amount.

You can do this by reviewing your statements through your mySocialSecurity account online, where you’ll see an estimate of your future benefit based on your real earnings. This is also a prime opportunity to double-check that your earning history is correct, because if there’s any information missing or incorrect, it can affect your benefit amount.

The estimate you see on your statements is your full benefit amount, or the payment you’ll receive by filing at your FRA. From there, you can determine exactly how your claiming age will affect the size of your checks.

Data source: Social Security Administration. Table by author.

You can also file for benefits at any age between birthdays, but for every month you claim before your FRA, your benefits will be reduced slightly more. By having at least a rough estimate of how much will be deducted, it will be easier to plan accordingly.

Keep in mind, too, that if you’re filing after your FRA (up to age 70), that will also alter your benefit. If you have an FRA of 67 and you file at 70, you’ll collect your full benefit, plus a bonus of 24% per month.

There’s no right or wrong time to take Social Security, but it is important to know how that decision will affect your benefit. When you know what to expect from Social Security heading into retirement, you can rest easier knowing you’re as prepared as possible.

Fox News host Jesse Watters acknowledged Thursday that his program made a mistake in reporting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s phone conversation with President Trump during last month’s immigration raids in Los Angeles.

Newsom filed a $787-million defamation lawsuit against Watters and Fox News on June 27 after the host reported on comments Trump made about a phone call with the governor as tensions heated up over the raids and the president’s decision to deploy the National Guard.

Newsom’s lawsuit said Watters lied on his prime-time program about the timeline of his conversations with the president.

After the lawsuit was filed in a Delaware court, Newsom’s lawyers said they were prepared to drop the suit if the governor got a retraction and a formal on-air apology. The suit claims Fox News willfully distorted the facts about the Trump call to harm the governor politically.

Asked for a reaction to Watters’ remarks about the matter, Newsom showed no signs of backing down. “Discovery will be fun,” he said in a statement. “See you in court buddy.”

Watters’ on-air persona is snarky and tongue-in-cheek and he did not deviate from it when he addressed the Newsom matter. He acknowledged he misunderstood Newsom’s social media post on Trump’s remarks and used the words “I’m sorry.” But it was far from a fulsome apology.

“Fox News invited [Newsom] on the show to talk it out man to man, but he said no,” Watters said.

The dust-up began after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on June 10 that he spoke to Newsom “a day ago — called him up tell him you’ve got to do a better job, you’re doing a bad job.” Trump’s comment gave the impression that the two spoke on the same day 700 Marines were deployed in Los Angeles.

Newsom refuted the claim in a post on X. The governor had already said publicly he spoke to Trump after midnight Eastern time on June 7 and the National Guard was not discussed. They never spoke after that.

“There was no call,” Newsom posted on X. “Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to.”

Newsom’s lawyers allege in the complaint that by making the call seem more recent, Trump could suggest they discussed the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, which they had not.

Trump sent Fox News anchor John Roberts a screen shot showing the June 7 date stamp of the phone call, which Watters showed on his program to assert that Newsom was lying when he said they did not speak.

When Watters showed a clip of Trump’s June 10 comments about the call on his program, it omitted the portion where the president said he spoke to Newsom the previous day. A banner at the bottom of the screen read: “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Watters told viewers Thursday he believed Newsom’s X post asserted that the two had not spoken at all.

“‘Not even a voicemail’ — we took that to mean there was no call ever,” Watters said.

“We thought the dispute was about whether there was a phone call at all when he said without qualification that there was no call,” the host continued. “Now Newsom’s telling us what was in his head when he wrote the tweet. He didn’t deceive anybody on purpose, so I’m sorry, he wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear. Next time, governor, why don’t you say what you mean.”

The $787-million figure in the lawsuit is the amount Fox News paid to Dominion Voting Systems to settle another defamation case in 2023. Fox agreed to pay the company, which said the network aired false claims that its voting equipment was manipulated to help President Biden win the 2020 election.

Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin dairy farmer alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Monday that the Trump administration is illegally denying financial assistance to white farmers by continuing programs that favor minorities.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a white dairy farmer, Adam Faust.

Faust was among several farmers who successfully sued the Biden administration in 2021 for race discrimination in the USDA’s Farmer Loan Forgiveness Plan.

The new lawsuit alleges the government has continued to implement diversity, equity and inclusion programs that were instituted under former President Biden. The Wisconsin Institute wrote to the USDA in April warning of legal action, and six Republican Wisconsin congressmen called on the USDA to investigate and end the programs.

“The USDA should honor the President’s promise to the American people to end racial discrimination in the federal government,” Faust said in a written statement. “After being ignored by a federal agency that’s meant to support agriculture, I hope my lawsuit brings answers, accountability, and results from USDA.”

Trump administration spokesperson Anna Kelly did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment.

The lawsuit contends that Faust is one of 2 million white male American farmers who are subject to discriminatory race-based policies at the USDA.

The lawsuit names three USDA programs and policies it says put white men at a disadvantage and violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by discriminating based on race and sex.

Faust participates in one program designed to offset the gap between milk prices and the cost of feed, but the lawsuit alleges he is charged a $100 administrative fee that minority and female farmers do not have to pay.

Faust also participates in a USDA program that guarantees 90% of the value of loans to white farmers, but 95% to women and racial minorities. That puts Faust at a disadvantage, the lawsuit alleges.

Faust has also begun work on a new manure storage system that could qualify for reimbursement under a USDA environmental conservation program, but 75% of his costs are eligible while 90% of the costs of minority farmers qualify, the lawsuit contends.

A federal court judge ruled in a similar 2021 case that granting loan forgiveness only to “socially disadvantaged farmers” amounts to unconstitutional race discrimination. The Biden administration suspended the program and Congress repealed it in 2022.

The Wisconsin Institute has filed dozens of such lawsuits in 25 states attacking DEI programs in government. In its April letter to the USDA, the law firm that has a long history of representing Republicans said it didn’t want to sue “but there is no excuse for this continued discrimination.”

Trump has been aggressive in trying to end the government’s DEI efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and bring about a profound cultural shift across the U.S. from promoting diversity to an exclusive focus on merit.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.