complaint

Grand Designs viewers were left disgruntled as Kevin McCloud returned to a build from 25 years ago.

Grand Designs viewers claimed to “turn off” the Channel 4 programme as they rushed to social media to share their complaints.

Kevin McCloud’s architectural programme has been airing a new series, which has so far seen a ‘pink cloud house’ in London built by an eccentric couple, and a Cornwall family home designed to overlook the sea. On Wednesday, 14 October, the Channel 4 show took viewers back in time 25 years, revisiting a build in Yorkshire.

It looked back on earlier Grand Designs clips, where Chris and Gill designed and built their dream home from a 19th-century Mill. Kevin shared at the start of the episode: “West Yorkshire has always been a place of innovation, manufacturing and mills.”

He spoke about the disrepair of one mill, before it was brought back to life by “gutsy pioneers”. Kevin continued: “25 years ago, Chris and Gill put that same spirit of innovation into the restoration of one of these forgotten buildings.

“They took an abandoned mill and turned it into a high-tech home, and they did it in proper Yorkshire style – no nonsense, with grit.” Gill and Chris had bought the derelict 19th-century mill in 1999, without seeing the site.

“What a dump,” Kevin had declared at the time. But the couple were determined to transform it, and had high ambitions for “a radical hybrid home”. Looking back on the build, Kevin went on: “Amazingly, it’s been a quarter of a century since I last saw Chris and Gill, that is a really long time! So long in fact, that you have to ask, have they changed? Is the building as radical as it looked then, and most importantly, how well has that building over 25 years looked after them?”

As Kevin shared their story from over two decades ago, and reflected on where Gill and Chris were now, viewers were disgruntled at the revisit, rather than a new project on their screens. A number of fans quickly took to social media to share their frustrations.

“Another pointless edition of #granddesigns,” one person fumed, as another said: “Always disappointing seeing ‘new’ @granddesigns and its the revisited version.” Someone else said: “There obviously hasn’t been many new ‘grand design’ projects in the country over the last few years as it’s a ‘revisited’ episode four shows into the new series.” Someone else replied by saying they’ve “turned it off”, as another added: “Was exactly my point too.”

Someone else wrote: “#granddesigns revisit, in other words, it’s a repeat.” However, other viewers were more excited about the revisit episode, with one sharing: “I can’t wait! This one was amazing at the time.” Someone else declared: “This was one of my favourite GD’s of all time.”

Ahead of the new series airing, Kevin spoke about the success of Grand Designs, and was asked about if the series has changed the way people build houses. He replied: “It is very chicken and egg, what came first?

“I think the great thing about television is that it can reflect society, and I think television is at its best when it is able to do that and hold a mirror up and say, this is us now. Channel 4 are very good at doing this, I think it is one of the most compelling things about the channel.

“Grand Designs has been going forever, and so the question is whether it holds a mirror up and I believe the answer is yes, it does so because we have no real formula. We find projects in the real world and we observe, that is it.

“Grand Designs strengths and its longevity are down to the fact it doesn’t really have a format other than that. It has a beginning and a conclusion, but what happens in the middle is not up to us, it is up to the people who are building. We, of course, go out of our way to find interesting and challenging projects that are more at the margins, that show us where we might be as a society in 5,10, 20 years time, not just where we are now. So, my short answer is possibly, but it is much more important for us to show examples of stuff which show the rest of society how we might be building and living in the future.”

Grand Designs airs Wednesdays at 9pm on Channel 4

The latest episode of the ITV2 programme featured an error that viewers couldn’t ignore

Big Brother viewers have spotted the same error just minutes into the latest episode of the ITV2 programme.

The reality competition returned to screens on Thursday night (October 8), with the housemates still residing in the House of Revelations. The twist is all about exposing secrets in the house, including housemates’ true feelings about each other.

Viewers were ready to tune into the next revealing challenge in tonight’s episode, but they were left distracted by Rochelle’s comment just minutes in. During a conversation with newcomer Twinks, the housewife earnestly asked: “Who was the feminist that ran in the streets, Betty Boop, or something?”

Rochelle went on to add: “She ran on the race course, didn’t she? And got run over.” The other housemates within earshot quickly jumped in to correct her but their replies weren’t especially helpful.

Twinks responded: “Betty Boop’s a cartoon with the big head,” before adding that “Emily Pankhurst” was the feminist who tragically died after being hit by King George V’s horse in 1913.

While Emmeline Pankhurst was the woman who fronted the British suffragette movement, she wasn’t the person who walked onto the race course. That was actually fellow suffragette Emily Davison.

Viewers quickly spotted Twinks’ error and gathered on social media correct her. One X user posted: “for the record, neither Betty Boop nor Emeline Pankhurst ran in front of the horse, it was Emily Davison #bbuk.” A second rightfully questioned: “Wasn’t it Emily Davidson, not Pankhurst who threw herself under the horse? #bbuk.”

Someone else said: “Eye is twitching at Emily Davison being referred to as both Betty Boop and Emmeline Pankhurst. Bless Twinks for incorrectly correcting Rochelle, Pankhurst was closer but they are different people my love #BBUK

While a third eagle-eyed fan chimed in with: “Slight ding for Twinks there. It was Emily Davison who ran in front of the race track horse at the Derby. Emmeline Pankhurst was the leader of the suffragettes. Know your history if you plan to educate! #BBUK”

But this small mishap is unlikely to sway public opinion on Twinks, who is currently the frontrunner to win the show according to recent odds.

Try ITVX Premium free for a week

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£59.99

£0

ITVX

Get ITVX Premium here

ITVX Premium offers exclusive ad-free content that can be streamed on-demand and on the go, with everything from Hollywood blockbusters to bingeable British box sets.

An annual plan costs £59.99 – equal to £4.99 per month – after a seven-day free trial.

It comes just hours before the house is set to face its next live eviction following brutal face-to-face nominations earlier this week.

Pauline is up for elimination after receiving five nominations from Lynx, Philip, Rhianna, Rochelle and Catrin. And Rob will join her, having received six nominations from Frankie, Lynx, Omar, Philip, Rhianna and Yasmin.

Viewers are being asked to vote for the housemate they wish to evict. Friday night (October 9) will see the next eviction and the evictee’s first live interview with hosts AJ Odudu and Will Best.

Big Brother continues tomorrow at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX

HARRISBURG, Pa. — When the U.S. Department of Homeland Security publicized the arrest of a Nigerian man for indecent exposure this week, it included a political attack that’s drawing complaints from Democrats and a nonpartisan government watchdog.

The department’s news release alleges that the man worked for a Democratic congressional candidate in a Pennsylvania battleground district, an unusual reference to a high-profile midterm contest.

“It’s unbelievable that Janelle Stelson would employ an illegal alien to work on a congressional campaign, let alone a pervert who exposed himself in public,” Charles Wall, deputy director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in the news release.

A police report said the man had fliers for Stelson in his vehicle. Stelson denied that the man was a campaign employee.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about how it established the man worked for Stelson. Its news release cited a news report quoting a conservative activist who asserted the connection.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint Thursday with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, calling the department’s attack on Stelson a blatant violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government officials from using their official positions to influence elections.

Donald Sherman, who leads CREW, said he’d never seen anything like the department’s statement, where a law enforcement agency “goes out of its way” to reference a campaign affiliation in a news release that has nothing to do with election-related crimes.

The news release is “consistent with the message that the administration and that the president has sent from the top that ICE is to be involved in elections, regardless of what the law says,” Sherman said.

Stelson, a former local television personality, is running for the second time against Republican Rep. Scott Perry in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District. It’s expected to be one of the races that determines control of the U.S. House in the November midterms.

“If he is an illegal immigrant who committed a crime he should be deported,” Stelson’s campaign said. “We never heard of him prior to the news of his arrest. We are grateful to law enforcement for acting swiftly to arrest him.”

President Trump’s administration is already under scrutiny for using federal resources for political purposes. The Department of Homeland Security has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on advertisements glorifying Trump and promoting his campaign messaging, drawing a pair of lawsuits and bipartisan backlash.

According to a police report obtained by the Associated Press, Chimaobim Adedayo Igbojekwe was arrested by an East Pennsboro Township police officer on Sept. 27 after a report of a suspicious vehicle parked next to a public park on a residential street in the Harrisburg suburb.

The officer wrote that, when Igbojekwe opened the door to talk to the officer, he noticed that Igbojekwe’s “genitals were exposed.”

Igbojekwe told the officer he was “in the neighborhood for work and that he was waiting to hand out [fliers] for Janelle Stelson’s political campaign,” according to the report. Igbojekwe produced a stack of fliers, the officer wrote.

It’s not clear whether the man was working as a paid canvasser for another organization.

Igbojekwe was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, courts records say, and later was arrested by ICE.

Homeland Security said Igbojekwe entered the country legally in 2017 but remained past his “authorized period.” He was granted deferred action in 2021.

Igbojekwe’s public defender did not return a call about the case.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — A private prison company is challenging a new California law requiring detention centers to provide medical care, privacy and other civil rights to people detained by federal immigration authorities.

GEO Group, a for-profit prison company, filed a complaint in federal court over Senate Bill 942, also called the Civil Detainees’ Bill of Rights Act of 2026. It mandates that immigrant and other detainees are afforded privacy, safety, hygienic living conditions and other rights.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law last week as part of a package of bills to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement, which the Democratic governor described as “Orwellian.” GEO Group filed its complaint the day after Newsom signed the law.

SB 942 declares that detainees at state, local and privately run facilities have the right to medical, dental and mental health care; physical exercise; clean drinking water and functioning toilets; and other rights. It allows the attorney general to bring civil action against private and public entities that allegedly violate those rights.

GEO Group attorneys argue in the federal complaint that while California elected officials “may disagree with federal immigration policy,” the state “may not impose its preferred immigration-detention standards on federal detention operations, whether those standards would tighten, loosen, supplement, or otherwise alter the federal framework.”

According to its website, the company operates six detention facilities in California, four of which are housing detainees under contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That includes a shuttered state prison that began holding ICE detainees earlier this year.

GEO Group has had some previous success challenging laws seeking to undermine the private prison industry’s role in federal immigration enforcement. A federal court struck down a 2019 law that attempted to bar any “private detention facility within the state” after the company filed suit.

Representatives for GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment. Spokespeople for Newsom, Atty Gen. Rob Bonta and state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), who authored the bill, did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.

Two social media influencers who filed an ethics complaint against Tom Steyer’s California gubernatorial campaign have submitted new complaints to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission and the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, accusing Nithya Raman’s mayoral campaign of paying influencers without proper disclosure.

Their complaints, it turns out, received a legal assist from the campaign of L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.

The metadata for a draft of their filings last week revealed that they had been created with the help of the law firm used by Bass’ election campaign.

Kaitlyn Hennessy, who filed the complaint with Beatrice Gomberg, acknowledged to The Times that the Bass campaign steered them to the Kaufman Legal Group, which helped prepare the complaint.

Bass’ campaign said it is picking up the tab for the legal work but wasn’t paying Hennessy and Gomberg for their efforts.

The complaint focused on posts by comedian and TV personality Adam Conover and influencer-turned-Raman staffer Eric Cheng, along with a host of so-called “meme” accounts, which repost content created by others, sometimes at the behest of political campaigns.

The Raman campaign said it has done nothing wrong and denied any wrongdoing on behalf of Cheng. Conover also denied any wrongdoing.

The Bass campaign’s decision to cover legal costs for the complaints is unlikely to pose ethics issues, according to legal experts consulted by The Times, provided the payments are reported by the campaign in its disclosure reports, which the campaign said it intends to do.

“As long as a campaign is transparent in reporting its expenditures, there’s nothing inherently wrong for a campaign to have its lawyers file an ethics complaint for the campaign or somebody else with their informed consent,” said Jeffrey Daar, a former president of the L.A. Ethics Commission.

Conover’s posts promoting Raman already attracted scrutiny in ethics complaints filed in May by former L.A. City Council candidate Dylan Kendall. The investigations into those complaints, to the FPPC and L.A. Ethics Commission, are ongoing.

Conover told The Times that payments made by the campaign to a company connected to him were not for his posts but for video work one of his staffers did for Raman’s campaign. They initially were described in Raman’s campaign filings as payments for online ads but later were amended to say they were for video production services.

A spokesperson for Raman’s campaign said Cheng is paid for work he does for the campaign, not for posts on his personal social media account, and that it had gotten guidance from L.A. Ethics Commission staff on Cheng’s disclosure requirements to ensure it was in compliance.

The spokesperson added that Cheng voluntarily posted on his social media account that he would be joining the campaign before his employment began.

The L.A. Ethics Commission and FPPC declined to comment on the status of the complaint or the prior one brought by Kendall.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Marymount University’s law school who also previously served as the president of the ethics commission, said that because news of an ethics complaint can have a political impact before its merits have been evaluated, it is important to view filings late in an election cycle with greater scrutiny.

“Whenever I see that there’s an ethics complaint filed this close to the election, I always pause for a minute,” she said.

California is one of the few states in the country that require social media influencers to disclose if they have been paid by a political campaign to create content. L.A. rules are even more strict.

Political groups are required to notify paid creators of the requirement.

New state legislation signed into law last month gives the FPPC the power to refer alleged violators to law enforcement for possible misdemeanor charges, and violations can be penalized with a fine of up to $5,000 per instance. The L.A. Ethics Commission can levy fines of up to $15,000 or three times the amount of money at issue.

There are no such rules for paid social media content sponsored by a federal candidate or political committee.

The FPPC last month concluded its investigation into Steyer’s campaign and found that it had properly followed the rules, but it did say that several social media influencers, including Cheng, the Raman staffer, had not properly disclosed payments from the Steyer campaign.

Hennessy and Gomberg are continuing to investigate improperly disclosed social media posts in races across the country, including the L.A. mayoral race, because of their concerns about the corrosive impact this content can have on the electoral process, Hennessy said.

“It’s really disappointing to me, because you see how this impacts races,” Hennessy said. “When you have this undisclosed content, people don’t understand that what they’re watching is an ad.”

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice filed a complaint Wednesday against federal judges in Minnesota over their remarks to the media related to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge.

The complaint escalates the department’s battle with the federal judiciary, which has halted administration priorities, dismissed high-profile prosecutions and accused government lawyers in some cases of failing to comply with court orders.

The department is demanding that the judges recuse themselves from all criminal or civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters, because of what he described as “obvious bias they have shown” in recent remarks to the New York Times.

At issue is a September article in which seven federal judges in Minnesota — nominated by Democrats and Republican presidents — spoke on the record about their experience dealing with a flood of cases during last winter’s immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests.

The judge at the center of the story, Patrick Schiltz, accused the government in January of failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders. He said in a ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a part of Homeland Security, “is not a law unto itself.”

Schiltz, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told the newspaper that what happened in Minnesota’s federal court last winter “created a grave threat to the rule of law.”

In a statement Wednesday, Schiltz said he was “acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to The New York Times.”

“Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges” may speak or write “on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence,’” Schiltz said. “That is exactly what I did.”

The complaint was filed with the chief judge of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal judges in Minnesota.

The Republican administration has railed against what it describes as “activist judges” who officials say are intent on thwarting Trump’s agenda. Yet some of the most critical and unfavorable court rulings have come from judges nominated by Trump and other Republican presidents.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.

The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.

The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.

Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.

The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.

The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.

One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.

In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.

Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.

Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.

“That is exactly what I did,” he said.

The Radford family are back in action once again in another series of their popular Channel 5 show.

Channel 5 viewers have been left less than impressed.

A brand new series of 22 Kids and Counting began earlier this month as Noel and Sue Radford let cameras back into their home to document their busy lives. During a recent episode of the show, Channel 5 viewers saw one of their eldest daughters, Millie, have relationship issues with her husband, Harvey.

One month on from their year anniversary, people saw Noel walk into their home to find Harvey’s belongings in a bag and a photograph of them torn up on the floor. A clip from the episode was shared on Channel 5’s Instagram, which showed Millie kicking Harvey out.

As Millie explained, she had told Harvey they were ‘through’, her husband told the cameras he had gone back to his mum’s house as she told him to leave their home.

Elsewhere in the snippet, it showed mum Sue trying to help the pair reconcile as she called in an expert in family dynamics.

The clip on Instagram was captioned: “Millie kicks Harvey out after reaching breaking point. But when Sue brings in an expert and some home truths hit hard, will Harley finally change his ways?” However, it wasn’t long before people commented on the snippet of the episode, with many issuing the same complaint.

One person said: “This whole show is more and more staged.” As another added: “Never watched something so scripted and set up. Absolutely ridiculous. What are the chances Noel was with the camera crew and the photo was placed in the middle of the floor in the most obvious ripped up pile?”

Someone else wrote: “So staged now. I liked watching it a few years ago.” While a fourth added: “Love this programme, but it’s getting more like a soap opera these days. Can tell things are set up for the cameras… saying they are moving house. Which never happened. Millie’s door was left open, and a ripped photo was on the floor. So fake.”

Although one person defended the programme, adding: “It may be more scripted and edited, but the storylines aren’t fake if that’s what you’re suggesting. Not sure why a programme affects you so much.”

As another shared: “I love this. Well done to the Radfords for actually supporting even though he’s not their kid, what a beautiful support system Millie and he have, and what a beautiful thing to do for your grandkids! Just amazing parenting and support, thank you!!”

During the episode, it showed the pair make amends as Millie and Harvey have recently welcomed their fourth baby into the world. She shared the news on social media this week, telling viewers they had a little boy called Cooper-Jax

22 Kids and Counting is available to watch on Sundays on Channel 5 at 8pm

The Blame was back for another instalment on Monday, with viewers quickly issuing a complaint

ITV’s thrilling crime drama The Blame returned to screens on Monday.

The six-part series stars Michelle Keegan and Douglas Booth as DI Emma Crane and DI Tom Radley, who attempt to expose corruption and deep-rooted misogyny within the police force after the death of a teenage girl. But unexpected twists and secrets soon leave Emma questioning who she can really trust.

The official synopsis teases: “The drama dives into secrets, suspicion and systemic corruption – all under the surface of this seemingly quiet town. The series begins when the body of teenage figure skater Sophie Madsen is discovered, sending shockwaves through the town of Wakestead.

“As DI Crane and DI Radley dig deeper, what starts as a tragic death, spirals into a tangled web of lies, institutional cover-ups, and moral compromise. As the clock ticks and trust fractures, Crane must navigate both a murder investigation and the treacherous politics inside her own team,” reports Wales Online.

During the latest instalment on Monday (September 28), Emma and her colleague DC Lewis Brimah (Nathan Mensah) visited Tom, after he was put under investigation. As the police officers discussed the case, many viewers were left distracted by the ex-cop who was hidden in the bushes outside.

One person felt that the detail was “really odd”, while several others shared their frustration. That’s not all, as the drama soon continued when Tom’s house was later raided by a swarm of officers.

Viewers quickly questioned why so many detectives had been instructed to attend the scene. One person asked on X: “Omg what are they doing at Tom’s house.”

Another added: “200 police to search Tom’s house,” while a third said: “So they need 20 coppers to arrest one man???” Someone else commented: “All raiding Tom’s house! OMG!”

Despite the confusion, The Blame has garnered largely positive reviews from critics and viewers since its debut last week. One IMDb user wrote: “We found this an amazing series. Keeps you guessing all the way through. This is no slow burner.”

Another added: “I binge watched this series in one day and loved it. Highly recommend this series. The acting was superb especially by Michelle Keegan, Douglas Booth, Nathan Mensah and Ian Hart. The script was really well thought out and it was a massive shock to read the team group message chats – taken from actual UK police officers, that have since been dismissed from the force.”

Someone else commented: “Loved this show. The acting was really good. The twists kept twisting and the turns kept turning right till the end. I usually have these things figured out but I was genuinely surprised by this show.”

The series has been adapted by Megan Gallagher with co-writers Ashley Sanders and Namsi Khan from the 2023 novel of the same name by Charlotte Langley.

The Blame is available to stream on ITVX

Melissa Nathan, the crisis management public relations pro hired by actor-director Justin Baldoni amid his lengthy legal feud with actor Blake Lively, is in the hot seat after Baldoni’s former publicist claimed that Nathan played a key role in operating a network of anonymous “smear” websites.

The publicist, Stephanie Jones, filed an initial complaint in New York Supreme Court in December 2024, accusing Baldoni’s crisis PR team of waging a coordinated effort to undermine her and deflect blame for what she called a retaliatory smear campaign targeting Lively.

But new documents filed last week brought front and center a “key question from the outset of this case”: Who was behind the creation of anonymous websites that popped up in May 2024 and accused Jones of “holding clients hostage” and leaking their secrets?

Nathan did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment Friday. But in a deposition, she said she was absolutely not the mastermind behind the now-defunct stephaniejonesleaks.com.

In the recent filing, Jones claims she repeatedly sought communications that could support her suspicions about the website’s origin, and last week received documents from Katherine Case, a former employee of Jones’ PR firm, Jonesworks, who subsequently worked for Nathan’s crisis management firm, the Agency Group.

Those documents, the filing alleges, show Nathan repeatedly testified falsely about the websites, and confirm that “Melissa Nathan was directly involved in a scheme to utilize untraceable websites to destroy the reputation of her competitors and those adverse to her clients. Stephanie Jones and Jonesworks were among her victims.”

In alleged text messages between Nathan and Case included in court documents, Nathan appears to have offered Case “three or four grand” to make the website copy tarnishing Jones’ reputation “a lot more meaty” — “good enough for us to be able to point a journalist towards.”

Nathan also appears to direct Case to discuss “holding clients hostage” and detail how people are “scared of” Jones, the documents allege.

Nathan is alleged to have instructed Case to write copy that would “follow along the lines of a purported ‘whistleblower’ narrative.” In Case’s notes from a subsequent phone call, she allegedly wrote, “Copy for the website along the lines of — I can’t sit and watch this woman continue to do this, this is what she does … it’s now a time where I can speak my truth about what I saw there.”

The filing claims that a record from Zelle, a money-transferring service, shows a subsequent payment to Case in the amount of $4,000 from “Melissa E. Nathan.”

The websites weren’t a one-off, according to the filing. They were allegedly one of Nathan’s specialties, and a hot commodity among embattled celebrities.

Three months after the Jones website went live, Nathan allegedly texted “Pitch Perfect” star Rebel Wilson, who was involved in a dispute with producer Amanda Ghost over Wilson’s directorial debut, the 2024 musical “The Deb.”

“Nathan quoted Wilson $110,000 for an untraceable site with a satellite, ghost server, ghost hosting, full build, maintaining, and full algorithmic push across all platforms … for 3 months,” the filing alleges. “The next day Nathan texted Case, ‘Rebel wants a one of those sites.’ ”

New Orleans Pelicans star Zion Williamson had a “friendly and casual ‘friends with benefits’ sexual relationship” with the woman who is accusing him of raping and abusing her multiple times between 2018 and 2023, according to a court filing by the former Duke standout’s legal team.

A document submitted to Los Angeles County Superior Court on Monday states that Williamson denies “each and every allegation” made against him by a Jane Doe in a second amended complaint filed in June.

Williamson’s filing describes the interaction between the former No. 1 overall draft pick and his accuser as “infrequent and sporadic.”

“All interaction among and between the Plaintiff and Defendant was pleasant and entirely consensual, with the Plaintiff initiating and communicating her desire to be intimate with the Defendant,” the document states, “and the Plaintiff herself decided to end the relationship because she became upset when she realized that the Defendant was focusing his time and energy on professional basketball and on being a father, and did not have sufficient time or interest to maintain a relationship with the Plaintiff.”

The second amended complaint lists the causes of action as assault, battery, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, domestic violence and stalking. The response from Williamson’s team states that the statute of limitations has expired on each cause of action.

The initial complaint, filed in May 2025, also included false imprisonment and conversion as causes of action, which are not included in the latest complaint.

The lawsuit provides details of two instances in 2020 during which Williamson allegedly raped his accuser in a Beverly Hills apartment he was renting at the time.

“These two incidents were not isolated,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant continued to abuse, rape, assault, and batter Plaintiff in California and other states, including Louisiana and Texas, until the relationship ended in 2023.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Williamson committed many other acts of violence against his accuser, including strangling her multiple times to the point that she lost consciousness, suffocating or smothering her, striking and kicking her “with great force,” threatening to kill her and her family members, and pointing a loaded firearm to her head.

Williamson “was either drunk or on cocaine” while allegedly committing many of those acts, the lawsuit states.

A jury trial has been scheduled for April 2028.

SACRAMENTO — The California Primary Care Assn. and five clinics filed a civil lawsuit in federal court Friday accusing SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and its president, Dave Regan, of racketeering and using ballot initiatives to “shake down” community health centers.

The association alleges that Regan and his union orchestrated a “multi-year campaign of coercion, threats, and economic pressure” to “extort” what the lawsuit describes as “valuable property rights” and “labor-organizing terms” from CPCA and the health centers the association represents in California, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Times.

The suit says Regan pushed Proposition 44, which if approved by voters in November will restrict spending at nonprofit community health clinics, as political leverage against the industry. Regan then offered to call off the measure if CPCA agreed to support the union’s efforts to unionize 25,000 industry workers, the lawsuit states.

In the complaint, CPCA estimates that 25,000 new union members would generate $2.37 million in monthly revenue from dues paid to UHW.

“This is about Dave Regan and UHW in particular adopting a strategy to create harmful legislation and harmful ballot initiatives to force people to the table to negotiate favorable agreements that will benefit them financially and then when those agreements don’t go through, they allow these initiatives to go through to create punishment for the organizations that can’t come to terms, and then they keep coming back, over and over and over again,” said Brandon Thornock, chief executive of plaintiff Shasta Community Health, echoing claims in the lawsuit.

“It’s a complete waste of resources and it’s amoral.”

A spokesperson for UHW did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. In an interview in July, Regan denied asking the clinics to support his unionization efforts in exchange for dropping Proposition 44.

“We wanted to construct a relationship with the clinic association that prioritized appropriate funding of the community clinics in California, including restoring the healthcare cuts that were introduced by the ‘One Big [Beautiful] Bill,’” Regan said previously. “It was a strategic relationship where we’re working in a mutually cooperative way to properly fund the healthcare system to respect workers, and they were not interested in that.”

Regan is a powerful figure in California politics who has a history of using the ballot box to try to force the healthcare industry to unionize. The union leader has come under scrutiny this year over claims about his extreme political tactics, intimidating behavior toward and threats against women, and an allegation of assault more than 15 years ago, all of which he denies.

Regan is also the architect of California’s billionaire tax, a proposal on the November ballot to apply a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires that has splintered labor and divided Democrats.

The CPCA lawsuit, in the federal court in the Eastern District of California, alleges that Regan’s political tactics are not designed to win initiatives, “but to subjugate and terrify.”

The union, the lawsuit states, has filed dozens of punitive ballot measures in California “targeting hospitals and dialysis providers with the implied threat or directly stated purpose of coercing health care providers into acquiescing to their union organizing or bargaining demands.” UHW has spent over $216 million, the suit says, on measures to “harm patients, destroy services, and drive providers out of business.” The vast majority of the UHW-backed measures have been withdrawn, usually after the industry agrees to concessions, the suit states.

“No other singular entity or individual has engaged in such widespread corruption of California’s initiative process,” the suit states.

Proposition 44 requires that community clinics spend 90% of revenue on patient services, which Regan has said ensures that money is aligned with the mission of the health centers.

CPCA and health centers say restricting the funding would dramatically reduce money for other essential services and leave some clinics at risk of closing their doors.

The CPCA lawsuit alleges that Regan’s demands on Proposition 44 were sent in an email in January from a legislative staff member on behalf of the union. The offer, presented as a joint submission from UHW and two union affiliates, included a requirement that community health centers “hold elections for at least 5,000 employees in each of five years the agreement would be in effect, resulting in elections for 25,000 employees over the five-year period.”

The complaint says the email also disclosed that UHW said it would drop the initiative if CPCA agreed to the terms.

“The e-mail unambiguously shows that UHW and the Union Affiliates — bullied and instructed by Regan — agreed and intended to participate in an endeavor to abuse the ballot initiative process to extract valuable labor concessions from CPCA and CHCs, in violation of federal and state law,” the complaint states.

Negotiations to withdraw the measure fell apart on June 24, the day before the deadline to rescind initiatives from the statewide ballot.

The lawsuit alleges that the union offered a new deal that same day.

“UHW would withdraw the Clinic Penalty Initiative if, in exchange, CPCA reversed its opposition to UHW’s billionaires’ wealth tax initiative and took the funds it raised to oppose the Clinic Penalty Initiative and instead used that money to assist UHW in passing its wealth tax,” the lawsuit alleges. “The next morning, Regan, through an intermediary, offered the same ‘deal.’ CPCA refused to entertain such discussions.”

The lawsuit states that California’s community health centers served 6.7 million people in 2025 and 67% are enrolled in Medi-Cal, state subsidized healthcare coverage for low-income Californians. In many rural areas, health centers are sometimes the only source of primary care.

Thornock said Shasta Community Health has patients who travel more than an hour to get care and provides a program that transports them to health facilities. Under Proposition 44, the program would not be considered patient services.

“It was designed to create for us what becomes an existential crisis in many cases,” he said.

The CPCA lawsuit states that Regan and the union began seeking to extort unionization from nonprofit hospitals through ballot measures in 2011 and used the same strategy to try to grow their membership among dialysis center workers beginning in 2017. In early 2022, they began targeting CPCA and health centers through legislation, the lawsuit stated.

The suit also alleges that Regan and UHW are in violation of a California law that prohibits a proponent of a ballot initiative from seeking, soliciting, bargaining for, or obtaining any money or a thing of value from any person or entity for abandoning or preventing an initiative from moving forward.

A week before the lawsuit became public, The Times reported that independent investigators hired by SEIU found in a report that Regan had tried to “extort” an SEIU state council endorsement of the billionaire tax from other California union leaders. An outside law firm that investigated internal charges against Regan found that he suggested to David Huerta, then president of SEIU California, that the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the billionaire tax on the November ballot. The state council later voted to remain neutral on the measure.

The law firm’s investigation, which was paid for by Service Employees International Union, substantiated an allegation that Regan threatened Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, over the council’s position on the ballot measure. The SEIU probe found an allegation that Regan also assaulted one of Orr’s predecessors in the job, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, to be credible.

A second investigation conducted by an outside law firm hired by SEIU California found sufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint that Regan bullied Jessica Bartholow, the council’s government relations director.

In interviews with investigators hired by the union and with The Times, Regan admitted to swearing at a staff member for SEIU California and adamantly denied bullying, threatening and assaulting women or seeking to force the state council to back his measure.

Regan remains in his job and alleges that he’s being unfairly targeted over his advocacy for the billionaire tax. SEIU, the national umbrella organization that represents local SEIU affiliates, has not taken any disciplinary action against him while an internal administrative review process moves forward.

Sources involved in negotiations over the billionaire tax said Regan also asked for concessions to grow his union in exchange for rescinding the measure from the ballot this year, which The Times previously reported.

Regan’s list of demands included union contracts with two private hospitals and a health clinic, an organizing neutrality agreement with healthcare clinics statewide, recognition of his union from dialysis clinics and for billionaires to remove measures they launched in response to his tax, according to two sources familiar with the talks who were granted anonymity to share details of the discussions.

The union leader called the allegation “categorically false” and denied that he asked for concessions for his union in exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot.