court

Caracas, January 5, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores have pleaded not guilty to charges of “narcoterrorism” after being arraigned on Monday.

During a short session in a New York court, Maduro told Judge Alvin Hellerstein that he was the president of Venezuela and had been “illegally captured” in his Caracas home.

The Venezuelan leader was kidnapped by US special operations forces in the early hours of January 3 following US bombings against military installations.

He was indicted on charges of “narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices against the United States.” Flores faces the same charges except narco-terrorism conspiracy.

Maduro is being represented by Barry Pollack, who previously defended Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Pollack did not request bail but questioned the legality of Maduro’s “military abduction” and stressed that the Venezuelan leader is “entitled to the privilege” of being treated like a head of state.

Flores’ attorney, Mark Donnelly, said that her client had sustained “significant injuries during her abduction” and requested that she receive medical attention.

The trial is set to resume with a hearing on March 17.

US officials have issued repeated “narcoterrorism” accusations against Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan leaders over the years. However, they have never produced court-tested evidence to sustain the claims. US prosecutors reportedly withdrew claims of Maduro leading the so-called “Cartel de los Soles” in their indictment. 

Drug trafficking reports over the years from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global narcotics trafficking.

China and Russia condemn US violations of international law

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held an emergency session on Monday to address Washington’s military attacks and kidnapping of Maduro and Flores. The session ultimately produced no resolutions.

Russian UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya accused Washington of seeking to return the world to “an era of lawlessness.”

“We cannot allow the United States to proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge with the right to invade any country and hand down punishments with no regard for international law,” Nebenzya said.

Chinese representative Fu Cong accused the US of “trampling Venezuela’s sovereignty” and demanded that the Trump administration cease its “bullying and coercive practices.”

Both Moscow and Beijing labeled Maduro’s abduction a violation of the UN Charter and demanded the Venezuelan leader’s release. Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and several other nations joined the condemnation of the Trump administration’s military operations against Venezuela. 

For his part, Venezuelan UN Ambassador UN Samuel Moncada decried the “illegal and  illegitimate armed attack” against his country that had caused civilian casualties. Unofficial reports have tallied over 80 killed during the January 3 strikes.

In response, US representative Mike Waltz claimed that Washington was not at war with Venezuela and that the military operations constituted a “law enforcement” action.

Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as interim president

Monday likewise saw the Venezuelan National Assembly take office for a new five year term. 277 deputies, elected in the May 2025 elections, were sworn in. Jorge Rodrìguez was once more chosen by his peers to lead the legislative body. During his speech, he emphasized the importance of national unity in the present context.

Rodríguez stated that his main mission is to secure Maduro’s release and return to the South American nation. He likewise pointed out the absence of Cilia Flores, who was also elected to a new term as legislator.

The January 5 session concluded with the swearing in of Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president following a Supreme Court ruling last Saturday.

“This is a historic commitment that I assume with the certainty that national unity and the people’s strength will guarantee our sovereignty,” she said. Rodríguez expressed “pain” over Maduro and Flores’ kidnapping but vowed to “work tirelessly” for peace.

In the wake of the January 3 attacks, US President Donald Trump has issued renewed threats against Caracas, demanding privileged access to oil resources.

In a Sunday cabinet meeting, Rodríguez urged respect for Venezuelan sovereignty and called on the US government to establish an “agenda of cooperation” with Caracas.

Jan. 5 (UPI) — A Paris court found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying France’s first lady Brigitte Macron, wife of President Emmanuel Macron.

They were accused of spreading false claims about her gender and making “malicious remarks” about the 24-year age gap between the Macrons.

The false claims are from a 2017 conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman. The allegation was amplified in the United States, pushed by right-wing media personality Candace Owens. The Macrons have also filed a lawsuit in the United States against Owens.

All but one of the defendants in France were given suspended sentences of up to eight months. The other person was jailed for not showing up to court. Some also had their social media accounts suspended.

The judge said the defendants acted with a clear desire to harm Brigitte Macron with comments that were degrading and insulting.

“The most important things are the prevention courses and the suspension of some of the accounts” of the perpetrators, Jean Ennochi, Brigitte Macron’s lawyer, said.

Two of the defendants had been found guilty of slander in 2024 for claiming that the first lady had never existed. Natacha Rey, a self-proclaimed journalist, and Amandine Roy, who claims to be a psychic, said Macron’s brother Jean-Michel Trogneux had changed gender and began using Brigitte Macron’s name.

Their convictions were overturned on appeal because claiming that she is transgender isn’t an “attack on her honor.”

The Macrons are appealing the ruling.

Brigitte Macron’s daughter Tiphaine Auzière, 41, told the court that the false claims had damaged her mother’s quality of life. She said Brigitte Macron worried every day about the clothes she wore and how she stood.

Auzière said the social media posts had caused a “deterioration of her health” and a “deterioration of her quality of life.”

“Not a day or week goes by when someone does not talk about this to her … What is very hard for her are the repercussions on her family … Her grandchildren hear what is being said: ‘Your grandmother is lying’ or ‘Your grandmother is your grandfather.’ This affects her a lot. She does not know how to stop it. … She’s not elected, she has not sought anything, and she is permanently subjected to these attacks. I — as a daughter, a woman and a mother — would not wish her life on anyone,” Auzière said.

Trogneux, 80, lives in Amiens, where he grew up with Brigitte Macron and their siblings.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – recently abducted with his wife by US commandos from his home – has appeared in a federal courtroom in New York City for a hearing on alleged “narco-terrorism” and other charges.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were brought before US District Judge Alvin K Hellerstein at 12pm (17:00 GMT) on Monday for a brief legal proceeding that kicks off a long legal battle over whether they can face trial in the United States.

Handcuffed and wearing blue jail uniforms, Maduro and his wife were led into the court by officers, and both put on headsets to hear the English-language proceeding as it was translated into Spanish.

Maduro pleaded not guilty in the US court, telling the judge: “I was captured. I am innocent and a decent man, the president of my country.”

Across the street from the courthouse, the police separated a small but growing group of protesters from about a dozen pro-intervention demonstrators, including one man who pulled a Venezuelan flag away from those protesting the US abduction.

The left-wing leader, his wife, son and three others could face life in prison if convicted of allegedly working with drug cartels to facilitate the shipment of thousands of tons of cocaine into the country. Some observers say there is no evidence linking him to cartels.

Maduro’s lawyers said they’ll contest the legality of his arrest, arguing he is immune from prosecution as a sovereign head of a foreign state, though he is not recognised as Venezuela’s legitimate leader by the US and other nations around the world.

Flores also pleaded not guilty to US charges against her during the arraignment. Hellerstein ordered the Venezuelan leader to next appear in court for a hearing on March 17.

‘Attacks’ against US people

Near the end of the hearing, Maduro’s attorney Barry J Pollack said his client “is head of a sovereign state and entitled to the privilege” that the status ensures.

Pollack said there were “questions about the legality of his military abduction”, and there will be “voluminous” pretrial filings to address those legal challenges.

Earlier, images showed the pair being led handcuffed and under heavy guard from a helicopter en route from a detention facility to the courthouse, two days after they were forcibly removed from Caracas in a brazen US special forces operation.

“The United States arrested a narco-trafficker who is now going to stand trial in the United States,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told an emergency UN Security Council meeting about the US attack on Venezuela on Saturday.

Waltz accused Maduro of being “responsible for attacks against the people of the United States, for destabilising the Western Hemisphere, and illegitimately repressing the people of Venezuela”.

Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, accused the US of carrying out an illegal armed attack against his country.

Venezuela was subjected to bombing, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the loss of civilian and military lives, and the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife, Moncada said.

The abduction of a sitting head of state breached a core norm of international law, the personal immunity of leaders in office, he added, warning that such actions set a dangerous precedent for all countries.

Vast oil wealth

All eyes are on Venezuela’s response to the swiftly moving events after US President Donald Trump said late on Sunday that the US is “in charge” of the South American nation, which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who took the place of her ally Maduro, initially took a defiant stand against the seizure of the president in what some observers labelled a return to “US gunboat diplomacy”. But she has now offered “to collaborate” with Washington.

Venezuela’s opposition appreciates US intervention to remove Maduro from power, but is alarmed by Trump’s comments about US plans to “run” Venezuela, apparently with members of his government, one analyst said.

“Trump doesn’t recognise the decision of the Venezuelan people. We are not a colony of the US. We are an independent country,” Jose Manuel Puente, a professor at the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion, a private university in Caracas, told Al Jazeera.

“We want to initiate a transition to democracy, to rebuild the institutions, to rebuild the economy, to rebuild the oil sector. And we don’t see that from Trump until now.”

Rodriguez has served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy and its feared intelligence service, and was next in the presidential line of succession.

She’s part of a band of senior officials in Maduro’s administration who now appear to control Venezuela, even as Trump and other US officials say they’ll pressure the government to fall in line with their vision for the oil-rich nation.

On Sunday, some 2,000 Maduro supporters, including rifle-wielding men on motorcycles, rallied in Caracas with crowds shouting and waving Venezuelan flags. The Venezuelan military, loyal to Maduro, announced it recognised Rodriguez and urged calm.

The White House indicated on Sunday that it does not want regime change, only Maduro’s removal and a pliant new government that will enable US companies to exploit the country’s vast oil reserves – even if the government is filled with his former associates.

Jan. 5 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Venezuela’s new president, Delcy Rodriguez, to “do what’s right,” or face a similar or worse fate than President Nicolas Maduro, who is in a U.S. prison after being seized by U.S. Special Forces over the weekend.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic, adding that regime change remained on the table, saying that it was preferable to the present state of affairs and the situation “can’t get any worse.”

Rodriguez, who was due to be sworn in as president in Caracas at 7 a.m. EST with the support of the country’s military and the supreme court, has said she is willing to cooperate with the United States after initially condemning the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and demanding their release.

“We invite the U.S. government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation orientated towards shared development within the framework of international law,” she told her cabinet at her first meeting in charge on Sunday.

Trump said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Rodriguez and that she was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

Amid conflicting messaging, it was unclear if that was Trump’s meaning when he said in his news conference Saturday announcing the military operation that the United States was “going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

“We’re going to be running it with a group, and we’re going to make sure it’s run properly,” Trump said.

Rubio clarified Sunday that Trump was talking about exerting control from outside the country to bring about major policy shifts.

He said sanctions were one of the tools at the administration’s disposal to ensure the cooperation of the acting leadership, saying in an American broadcast TV interview that a blockade on Venezuela’s oil exports, being enforced by the U.S. military, would remain in place.

“We continue with that quarantine and we expect to see that there will be changes not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking, so that we no longer have these gang problems, so that they kick the [Columbian insurgent groups] FARC and the ELN out, and that they no longer cozy up to Hizballah and Iran in our own hemisphere,” Rubio said.

Meanwhile, Maduro was due to make his first appearance in Federal Court in New York later Monday, where he and Flores will be read a 25-page indictment accusing the pair of accumulating vast wealth from a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

They also face three related charges of cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

They are due to be transferred from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, which houses defendants accused of regular crimes, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in White Plains, N.Y., to appear at 12 p.m. EST.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is to appear in a New York court on Monday, two days after he was abducted by US special forces in a military operation in Caracas.

The US military arrested Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Saturday and brought them to New York, where they face multiple federal charges, including drugs and weapons charges.

Here is more about Maduro’s scheduled court appearance:

When and where will it take place?

Maduro is to appear before a federal judge at noon (17:00 GMT).

The appearance is scheduled to happen in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in the Southern District of New York. Maduro is to appear before US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

A court spokesperson told NBC News that Flores, who is also listed as a defendant in a US indictment unsealed on Saturday, will appear in court on Monday as well.

What are the charges?

According to the indictment, the US accuses Maduro of being at the forefront of corruption to “use his illegally obtained authority” to “transport thousands of tons of cocaine” to the US with his coconspirators.

Additionally, the indictment alleges that Maduro has “tarnished” every public office he has held. It adds that Maduro “allows cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish for his own benefit, for the benefit of members of his ruling regime, and for the benefit of his family members”.

Maduro faces four counts:

• Count 1, narcoterrorism conspiracy: US prosecutors say Maduro and his coconspirators knowingly provided something of financial value to US-designated “foreign terrorist organizations” and their members. The indictment lists these organisations as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a leftist rebel group that signed a peace deal in 2016 but has dissidents who refused to lay down their arms and are still involved in the drug trade; Segunda Marquetalia, the largest dissident FARC group; National Liberation Army, another leftist Colombian rebel group; Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel; Los Zetas/Cartel del Noreste, another Mexican drug cartel; and Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.
• Count 2, cocaine importation conspiracy: It accuses Maduro and his codefendants of conspiring to manufacture, distribute and import cocaine into the US.
• Count 3, possession of machineguns and destructive devices: The indictment accuses the defendants of possessing, carrying and using machineguns in relation to the above drug‑trafficking counts.
• Count 4, conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices: It further accuses the defendants of conspiring to use, carry and possess those weapons in furtherance of drug trafficking.

The indictment also says Maduro and his codefendants should forfeit to the US government any proceeds and assets obtained from the alleged crimes.

Is there evidence for these charges?

There is little evidence that drugs are trafficked from Venezuela on a large scale. The 2023 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime World Drug Report said global cocaine production hit a record of 3,708 tonnes, up nearly one‑third from 2022, with most coca cultivation taking place in Colombia, followed by Peru and Bolivia.

Trafficking routes into the US in 2023-2024 primarily passed through Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, not Venezuela, although it does serve as a minor transit corridor for Colombian cocaine moving into the eastern Caribbean.

Who is named in the indictment?

Maduro

Maduro, 63, who became Venezuela’s president in 2013, was declared the winner of 2024’s election. His re-election was rejected as fraudulent by the US and independent observers, such as the Carter Center. A UN expert panel said the 2024 vote failed to meet international standards.

Nine Latin American countries called for a review of the results with independent oversight.

Maduro defended the election results and accused his opponents of undermining the country’s sovereignty.

Since returning to the White House nearly a year ago, US President Donald Trump has expanded sanctions and punitive measures against Maduro and senior officials in his government.

The Trump administration ramped up military pressure starting in August when it deployed warships and thousand of its service members in the Caribbean near Venezuela. It has since carried out dozens of air strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats, killing more than 100 people.

Maduro has pushed back by mobilising Venezuelan military personnel.

During this time, the Caracas-based news network Globovision quoted Maduro as saying: “From the north, the empire has gone mad and, like a rotten rehash, has renewed its threats to the peace and stability of Venezuela.”

But a day before Saturday’s US attack on the country, Maduro had offered to hold talks to combat drug trafficking.

Flores

Flores, 69, has been married to Maduro since 2013.

Known as the “first combatant” rather than first lady, Flores is a veteran lawyer and politician who rose to prominence by defending future President Hugo Chavez after his failed 1992 coup. She helped secure his release and later became a key Chavismo figure and the first woman to preside over Venezuela’s National Assembly. Chavismo, which promotes socialism and anti-imperialist politics, is the political movement started by Chavez, Maduro’s mentor.

The indictment accuses Flores of joining Maduro’s cocaine importation conspiracy.

Other defendants

The indictment names four other people as Maduro’s coconspirators, namely Diosdado Cabello, Venezuela’s interior minister; Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, former Venezuelan interior minister; Nicolas Maduro Guerra, Maduro’s son and a Venezuelan politician; and Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, the leader of Tren de Aragua, which was designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the US in February. But most experts do not define Tren de Aragua as a “terrorist organisation”.

It is not clear yet who will represent Maduro, Flores and the other defendants.

Who is the judge?

Hellerstein was born in 1933 in New York. He was appointed to the federal bench in 1998 by former President Bill Clinton.

He is likely on Monday to advise Maduro and Flores about their rights and ask them if they want to enter a plea.

What’s at stake?

Maduro’s freedom is primarily at stake. If convicted, he could face 30 years to life in prison.

“This is less about Maduro as it is about access to Venezuela’s oil deposits,” Ilias Bantekas, a professor of transnational law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera. “This is the number one target. Trump is not content with just allowing US oil firms to get concessions but to ‘run’ the country, which entails absolute and indefinite control over Venezuela’s resources.”

Venezuela’s oil reserves are concentrated primarily in the Orinoco Belt, a region in the eastern part of the country stretching across roughly 55,000sq km (21,235sq miles).

While the country is home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves – at an estimated 303 billion barrels as of 2023 – it earns only a fraction of the revenue it once did from exporting crude due to mismanagement and US sanctions.

Last month, Trump accused Venezuela in a post on his Truth Social platform of “stealing” US oil, land and other assets and using that oil to fund crime, “terrorism” and human trafficking.

Trump repeated his false claims after Maduro’s arrest. During a news conference on Saturday, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” could be carried out.

“Given the opposition of all South American states, save for Argentina, to US dominance in the region, Trump’s plan requires a vast military deployment. We need to see how countries like Brazil and Colombia react to this, including also BRICS,” said Bantekas from Hamad Bin Khalifa University.

In a joint statement released on Sunday, the governments of Spain, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay said the US actions in Venezuela “constitute an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and regional security and endanger the civilian population”.

Was Maduro’s abduction legal?

This case is unusual because there are questions about how Maduro was captured and whether it was legal. Russia, China and other Venezuelan allies have accused the US of violating international law.

“If there was an armed conflict between Venezuela and the USA and, given that Maduro is the head of his country’s armed forces, then he would be a legitimate target,” Bantekas said.

“However, under the circumstances there is no armed conflict between the two countries and in the absence of an armed attack by Venezuela against the US, the latter’s invasion in Venezuela violates article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as does the abduction of the country’s President. It is a blatant act of aggression.”

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter bars UN members from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

A United Nations Security Council meeting on Monday will determine the legality of the US abduction of Maduro.

“Given that Maduro is already in US custody and in the USA, it is in the interests of all parties that he appear before a court. At the very least, Maduro can challenge the legality of his arrest and the jurisdiction of the court,” Bantekas said.

“The court itself has an obligation to decide if it has jurisdiction and as a preliminary issue decide whether Maduro enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. If these issues are dispensed the court nonetheless finds that it has jurisdiction and that Maduro does not enjoy immunity, then the prosecutor must prove its case.”

What’s next?

The Trump administration has not explicitly stated a clear plan for Venezuela, with analysts saying the administration has sent out confusing signals.

In an interview with the NBC news channels on Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Washington will not govern Venezuela on a day-to-day basis besides enforcing an existing “oil quarantine”.

Rubio told ABC news on Sunday that the US had leverage over Venezuela and the US would “set the conditions” to ensure that Venezuela is no longer a “narco-trafficking paradise”.

But on Sunday, Trump told reporters that the US is ready to carry out a second military strike on Venezuela if its government refuses to cooperate with his plan to ‘resolve’ the situation there.

She could “pay a very big price” if she “does not do what’s right”, Trump said, refering Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

During his Saturday conference, Trump said that Rodriguez told Rubio that she will do what the US needs her to. “She really doesn’t have a choice,” Trump had said.

In his first press conference after Maduro’s illegal abduction on Saturday, Trump ruled out the possibility of working with opposition leader and Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who was barred from running in the 2024 presidential elections.

Machado, a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly, is seen as the most credible adversary of Maduro’s leftist government.

On Monday, Rodriguez, the interim leader, offered to cooperate with Trump. In a statement posted on social media, she invited Trump to “collaborate” and sought “respectful relations”.

“President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war,” she wrote.

Her conciliatory tone came a day after she appeared on state TV declaring that Maduro was still Venezuela’s sole legitimate president.

UN Security Council to meet on Maduro’s abduction as Trump insists US in control of Venezuela.

OASIS star Liam Gallagher is facing a new court order to reveal how much money he has earned from the band’s hugely successful reunion tour, The Sun on Sunday can reveal.

A court hearing is set to be held in New York this month after the mother of the singer’s love child filed a fresh legal motion to access his latest finances.

Liza Ghorbani is trying to obtain the singer’s bank records, tax returns and credit card statements to show how much he is now worth, say experts.

It will be the first time the band’s tour finances — which are estimated to be more than £350million — face being exposed to public scrutiny.

Ms Ghorbani wants to use the fresh information to prove he should stump up the £500,000 a year she’s claiming for the care of their daughter Gemma, 12, who was born in 2013 after an affair.

Liam, 53, and his brother Noel, 58, are expected to have raked in millions of pounds for last year’s sell-out Oasis Live ’25 reunion world tour.

Read more on Liam Gallagher

HOME GOAL

Oasis singer Liam Gallagher buys £4.25m mansion from former England captain

LAST FAREWELL

Liam Gallagher carries Gary Mounfield’s coffin as Beckham leads mourners

The band, whose 1994 debut album Definitely Maybe has sold 15million copies worldwide, is estimated to have made £303million from ticket sales alone — with another £40million from sponsorship deals and merchandise.

More cash to come

Last week The Sun on Sunday told how Liam treated himself after the tour, splashing out on Arsenal star Tony Adams’s £4.25million Cotswolds mansion.

And there could be more cash to come as he has been teasing fans about new tour dates in the next couple of years.

It is understood that Ms Ghorbani, 51, is trying to access details on all of their tour-related income.

We can reveal that lawyers for the US music journalist have filed an application for an Order to Show Cause in New York’s Supreme Court.

The judge hearing their case, Mr ­Jeffrey Pearlman, has been asked to consider a motion to compel both sides to answer further questions and provide more information to help him make a decision.

He has set a date later this month for a fresh court hearing.

Ms Ghorbani has filed various documents into the court, including 15 exhibits setting out her specific requests on what she wants from Liam’s lawyers.

Details of her exact demands have not been disclosed.

But top New York family lawyer Morgan Mazer said Liam will have to hand over the documents relating to tour earnings during a process in the case called discovery.

Ms Mazer said: “Ms Ghorbani can get access to the tour merchandise sales, if it’s a side thing Mr Gallagher is earning money from.

He has been more than generous over the years and is standing firm with his legal team

Source close to Liam

“Ms Ghorbani will want to look at any employment and income, any perks that Mr Gallagher has.

“Credit card statements are relevant because some people don’t always show all their income on their tax returns.

“With the credit card statements you can glean what somebody is making based on their lifestyle. The powers to determine what you should pay in child support are broad.”

Yesterday a source close to the singer told The Sun on Sunday: “Liam has been focused on enjoying Christmas with his family and not letting this court case get to him.

“He has been more than generous over the years and is standing firm with his legal team.”

In March we revealed Ms Ghorbani had filed a lawsuit demanding more money despite the case being settled in 2015.

The rocker responded by slamming her on X as a “gold digger”.

He also posted a link to the 1963 Beatles song Money (That’s What I Want).

His tax returns will be sophisticated so you will likely want a forensic accountant to review them

Dror Bikel, New York family lawyer

Ms Ghorbani claims she needs more money because Gemma is autistic and her needs have changed.

Liam’s lawyer Judith Poller has called it an attempt to cash in on the Oasis tour.

Dror Bikel, another respected New York family lawyer, said the examination of Liam’s finances could be extensive.

He added: “When the accountants sink their teeth into it, people are in for a ride.

“His tax returns will be sophisticated so you will likely want a forensic accountant to review them and you can find out what investments he has, what property he owns.

“You start with the tax returns and go from there.”

And he said Liam could be held in ­contempt of court if he refuses to hand over more information.

Mr Bikel went on: “He could face financial penalties and the severest ­punishment is incarceration.

‘Could be consequences’

“If he doesn’t hand over his financial details there could be consequences.”

Mr Bikel also chided Liam for insulting Ms Ghorbani and said that it was “never a good idea” because “courts don’t like those kinds of things”.

In June the New York court heard Liam has paid out more than £750,000 since 2015. His lawyers said he later agreed to pay £180,000 towards Gemma’s school and autism-related expenses.

But Ms Ghorbani is demanding £510,000 a year to cover child support and expenses.

She and her daughter live in a £3,300-a-month Manhattan apartment. Her new demands include £22,500 a month for a home with a pool, £75,000 a year for a live-in nanny and a £5,000 holiday budget.

Liam, who has three other children, is said to have had a fling with Ms Ghorbani in 2011 soon after she interviewed him, while he was married to singer Nicole Appleton.

Additional reporting: Hannah Hope

Jan. 2 (UPI) — An anti-terrorism court in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Friday sentenced five journalists, a YouTube influencer and a military officer to two life sentences each for “digital terrorism” crimes.

Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Tahir Sipra announced the verdicts for the defendants, who were tried in absentia.

Pakistani law allows for trials in absentia, but their verdicts must be confirmed by the Islamabad High Court.

Those who were sentenced were Akbar Hussain, Wajahat Saeed Khan, Haider Raza Mehdi, Moeed Pirzada, Shaheen Sehbai, Sabir Shakir and Adil Raja.

Raja is a YouTube influencer, while Khan, Shakir, Sehbai, Mehdi and Pirzada are journalists. Hussain is a former Pakistan army officer.

The court found that the seven defendants encouraged riots on May 9, 2023, after former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was arrested briefly in Islamabad for alleged corruption.

Imran Khan’s supporters attacked governmental buildings and military facilities in several locations.

Prosecutors brought 24 witnesses against the defendants and said they used their respective digital media channels to incite riots, enable attacks and amplify the violence against governmental institutions.

If their sentences are upheld, each faces up to life in prison plus a $5,500 fine for criminal conspiracy.

Each also could be sentenced to another 10 years in prison and fined more than $2,200 for waging or attempting to wage or abetting in waging war against Pakistan.

Additionally, each defendant has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for three counts of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and fined nearly $7,000.

All sentences are to run concurrently if upheld by the higher court.

Court sentences journalists in absentia over alleged links to violent unrest after ex-PM Imran Khan’s May 2023 arrest.

A court in Pakistan has sentenced several journalists and social media commentators to life imprisonment after convicting them of inciting violence during riots in 2023 linked to the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

An anti-terrorism court judge, Tahir Abbas Sipra, announced the verdict on Friday in the capital, Islamabad, after completing trials held in absentia.

The convicted include former army officers-turned YouTubers Adil Raja and Syed Akbar Hussain; journalists Wajahat Saeed Khan, Sabir Shakir and Shaheen Sehbai, commentator Haider Raza Mehdi, and analyst Moeed Pirzada, according to the court’s decision.

None of the accused was present in court as they have been living abroad after leaving Pakistan in recent years to avoid arrest.

The convictions stem from cases registered after unrest in May 2023 saw some of Khan’s supporters attack military facilities and government property in response to his brief arrest in a corruption case.

Since then, the Pakistani government and military have launched a sweeping crackdown on Khan’s party and dissenting voices, using anti-terrorism laws and military trials to prosecute hundreds accused of incitement and attacks on state institutions.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said in 2023 that the investigations amounted to retaliation against critical reporting.

“Authorities must immediately drop these investigations and cease the relentless intimidation and censorship of the media,” CPJ Asia programme coordinator Beh Lih Yi said.

Journalist Sabir Shakir, who previously hosted a popular television programme on ARY TV before leaving Pakistan, told The Associated Press news agency on Friday that he was aware of his conviction.

He said that he wasn’t in the country when police accused him of encouraging mob violence.

“The ruling against me and others is nothing but a political victimisation,” Shakir told AP.

Under Friday’s court order, those convicted have the right to file appeals within seven days.

The court also directed police to arrest them and transfer them to prison should they return to Pakistan.

Dec. 31 (Asia Today) — Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said the judiciary will seek to ensure court system reforms benefit the public as debate over judicial changes continues in the National Assembly.

In a New Year’s address released Wednesday, Cho said the courts will “reflect from the public’s perspective” and deliver decisions “based on law and principle.” He added the judiciary will act responsibly so reforms move in “the most necessary and desirable direction” from the standpoint of citizens.

Cho said 2025 brought a major social crisis involving an emergency declaration and impeachment, prompting renewed reflection on democracy and the rule of law. He said public interest and expectations toward courts and trials have grown, and he acknowledged concerns raised about the judiciary.

He said the judiciary will prepare to open additional rehabilitation courts in Daejeon, Daegu and Gwangju to provide more specialized bankruptcy services without regional disparities, expanding opportunities for faster rehabilitation for businesses and individuals under economic strain.

Cho also said expanded staffing and budget will allow further support for expedited trials and initiatives aimed at ensuring courts free of discrimination for socially vulnerable groups. He said the judiciary plans to pilot specialized courts to resolve disputes closely tied to daily life, including lease conflicts.

He said the judiciary will continue to broaden access to justice based on the next-generation electronic litigation system and criminal electronic litigation system launched this year.

Cho said overseas participants at a 2025 Sejong International Conference expressed admiration for South Korea’s rule-of-law philosophy, and he said the judiciary will seek closer international cooperation through the Asia-Pacific Chief Justices Conference scheduled for September 2026.

Separately, Constitutional Court Chief Justice Kim Sang-hwan said in his own New Year’s address that 2025 led South Koreans to reconsider the meaning of the Constitution, citing Article 1’s principle that sovereignty resides with the people. He pledged to conduct constitutional adjudication fairly and independently to meet public expectations.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has again denied a request from the defence team of former President Jair Bolsonaro to move him from prison to house arrest.

Bolsonaro, 70, has been in and out of hospital over the past week, undergoing multiple treatments for aggressive hiccups and a hernia.

But on Thursday, his petition for house arrest on “humanitarian grounds” was denied, a day after it was filed.

In explaining the court’s decision, Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that Bolsonaro already has access to round-the-clock medical care in police custody.

The former right-wing leader is currently being held at the federal police headquarters in the capital, Brasilia, after being sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat.

De Moraes also questioned whether Bolsonaro’s health merited “humanitarian” accommodations.

“Contrary to what the defence alleges, there has been no worsening of Jair Messias Bolsonaro’s health condition,” the justice said in his decision.

“Rather, his clinical condition showed improvement in the discomfort he was experiencing after undergoing elective surgeries, as indicated in the report from his own doctors.”

Multiple requests

This is not the first time the court has rejected a similar petition from Bolsonaro, who has reportedly suffered from lingering conditions, including hiccups, related to an abdominal stabbing he survived on the campaign trail in 2018.

Bolsonaro was taken into custody in November after damaging an ankle monitor that allowed him to remain at home while pursuing appeals. He had been convicted in September.

But shortly after Bolsonaro was remanded into custody, his defence team filed a request for house arrest, warning of life-threatening conditions behind bars.

“It is certain that keeping the petitioner in a prison environment would pose a concrete and immediate risk to his physical integrity and even his life,” his lawyers wrote.

That request, and a subsequent one in December, have been denied.

On December 23, though, the Supreme Court approved Bolsonaro’s request to leave prison, in order to undergo surgery for a hernia, resulting from damage to his abdominal muscles.

He travelled to Brasilia’s DF Star hospital to receive treatment and has since pursued other procedures, including a phrenic nerve block treatment and an endoscopy, to address his persistent hiccups.

Election controversy

A former army captain, Bolsonaro became a rising star in Brazil’s far right and served as president for a single term, from 2019 to 2023.

During his term, he faced scrutiny for comments he made praising Brazil’s military dictatorship, which ruled the country from 1964 to 1985 and oversaw the systematic torture and killings of political dissidents.

He also allegedly used his office to cast doubt on the integrity of Brazil’s electronic voting system.

In 2023, Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) would ultimately bar Bolsonaro from holding public office for eight years, citing instances where he broadcast unfounded allegations about the election system on state TV and social media.

Still, Bolsonaro was considered a frontrunner going into the 2022 presidential race, where he faced two-term former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The race advanced to an October 30 run-off. Lula eked out a narrow win, besting the incumbent Bolsonaro by less than two percentage points, with 50.9 percent of the vote.

In the aftermath, Bolsonaro refused to publicly concede defeat, although media reports indicate he may have done so in private.

Meanwhile, he and his allies filed a legal challenge against the election outcome that was quickly rejected for its “total absence of any evidence”. Bolsonaro’s coalition was fined nearly $4.3m for the “bad faith” petition.

But the unfounded belief that Bolsonaro’s defeat was somehow illegitimate prompted his supporters to take to the streets. Some blocked highways. Others attacked the federal police headquarters.

The tensions culminated on January 8, 2023, a week after Lula’s inauguration, when thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stormed Brasilia’s Three Powers Plaza and broke into buildings representing Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.

Some supporters expressed hope that they could lead to a military coup that would remove Lula from power.

Legal jeopardy

That attack prompted wide-ranging investigations, and in November 2024, federal police issued a sweeping report accusing Bolsonaro and 36 allies of attempting to “violently dismantle” Brazil’s constitutional order.

The report detailed alleged instances where Bolsonaro and his allies discussed invalidating the election results — or even assassinating Lula.

Last February, prosecutors formally charged Bolsonaro and dozens of codefendants for attempting to overthrow the 2022 election.

His trial unfolded despite high-level international pressure from right-wing figures like United States President Donald Trump, who imposed steep tariffs on Brazil in August to protest against the prosecution.

Still, in September, Bolsonaro was found guilty on five counts, including attempted coup d’etat, armed conspiracy, attempted abolition of the rule of law, destruction of public property and damage to national heritage.

Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing throughout the case and has called his prosecution an attempt to silence a political rival.

He remains a popular figure on the right, and his eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, announced last month his intention to challenge Lula for the presidency this upcoming October.

Last month, Brazil’s conservative-led Congress also passed a bill that could shorten Bolsonaro’s sentence, though Lula has pledged to veto it.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday that the Constitution remains a sturdy pillar for the country, a message that comes after a tumultuous year in the nation’s judicial system with pivotal Supreme Court decisions on the horizon.

Roberts said the nation’s founding documents remain “firm and unshaken,” a reference to a century-old quote from President Coolidge. “True then; true now,” Roberts wrote in his annual letter to the judiciary.

The letter comes after a year in which legal scholars and Democrats raised fears of a possible constitutional crisis as President Trump’s supporters pushed back against rulings that slowed his far-reaching conservative agenda.

Roberts weighed in at one point, issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who had ruled against him in a case over the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members.

The chief justice’s Wednesday letter was largely focused on the nation’s history, including an early 19th-century case establishing the principle that Congress shouldn’t remove judges over contentious rulings.

While the Trump administration faced pushback in the lower courts, it has scored a series of some two dozen wins on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The court’s conservative majority has allowed Trump to move ahead for now with banning transgender people from the military, clawing back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, moving aggressively on immigration and firing the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

The court also handed Trump a few defeats over the last year, including in his push to deploy the National Guard to U.S. cities.

Other pivotal issues are ahead for the high court in 2026, including arguments over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship and a ruling on whether he can unilaterally impose tariffs on hundreds of countries.

Roberts’ letter contained few references to those issues. It opened with a history of the seminal 1776 pamphlet “Common Sense,” written by Thomas Paine, a “recent immigrant to Britain’s North American colonies,” and closed with Coolidge’s encouragement to “turn for solace” to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence “amid all the welter of partisan politics.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

X FACTOR star Chico may have exceeded the drink-drive limit because he took cough medicine before being breathalysed, a court has heard.

The 54-year-old singer – who donned a fur coat and cowboy hat to court – pleaded not guilty to drink-driving in Southgate, London, on December 13.

Chico – whose real name is Yousseph Slimani – appeared in the 2005 series of the TV talent show and later released a number one single, It’s Chico Time.

He is accused of driving a Vauxhall Astra with 40 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, Willesden Magistrates’ Court heard on Tuesday.

The legal limit of alcohol for driving in England is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres.

Chico had consumed cough medicine before giving the reading and that could have impacted its accuracy, Sarah King, defending, said.

FAREWELL TO STARS

From Ozzy Osbourne to Ricky Hatton – the stars we tragically lost in 2025

that’s rich

Adam Peaty’s ex slams name change as ‘hypocritical’ after Holly Ramsay wedding

Slimani pleaded not guilty and was given bail until his trial on April 9.

Welsh-born Chico found fame after reaching the quarter finals of the X Factor in 2005.

Simon Cowell famously walked out of his initial X Factor audition after fellow judges Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne voted him through.

In 2006, Chico had a number one hit on the British charts titled It’s Chico Time, which became his signature catchphrase.

In 2008, he appeared on the reality TV show CelebAir alongside socialite Tamara Beckwith and singer Lisa Maffia.

In 2010, Slimani recorded a single in support of the English Football Team for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, aptly called “It’s England Time”, a play on “It’s Chico Time”.

He also competed in ITV’s 2012 series of Dancing on Ice.

In 2018, he was rushed to hospital after suffering a stroke.

Recently, he launched his own fitness app called Block Fit which includes workout classes based around his hits.

Chico married singer Daniyela Rakic, sister of Wimbledon Champion Nenad Zimonjić, and the couple have two children.