court

The federal Office for Victims of Crime announced in the summer that millions of dollars approved for domestic violence survivors and other crime victims would be withheld from states that don’t comply with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

California, 19 other states and the District of Columbia sued, alleging that such preconditions are illegal and would undermine public safety.

The administration then took a different tack, announcing that community organizations that receive such funding from the states — and use it to help people escape violence, access shelter and file for restraining orders against their abusers — generally may not use it to provide services to undocumented immigrants.

California and other states sued again, arguing that the requirements — which the administration says the states must enforce — are similarly illegal and dangerous. Advocates agreed, saying screening immigrant women out of such programs would be cruel.

The repeated lawsuits reflect an increasingly familiar pattern in the growing mountain of litigation between the Trump administration, California and other blue states.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has tried to force the states into submission on a host of policy fronts by cutting off federal funding, part of a drive to bypass Congress and vastly expand executive power. Repeatedly when those cuts have been challenged in court, the administration has shifted its approach to go after the same or similar funding from a slightly different angle — prompting more litigation.

The repeated lawsuits have added complexity and volume to an already monumental legal war between the administration and states such as California, one that began almost immediately after Trump took office and is ongoing, as the administration once again threatens major cuts amid the government shutdown.

The White House has previously dismissed California’s lawsuits as baseless and defended Trump’s right to enact his policy agenda, including by withholding funds. Asked about its shifting strategies in some of those cases, Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration “has won numerous cases regarding spending cuts at the Supreme Court and will continue to cut wasteful spending across the government in a lawful manner.”

Other administration officials have also defended its legal tactics. During a fight over frozen federal funding earlier this year, for instance, Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” — sparking concerns about a constitutional crisis.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the pattern is a result of Trump overstating his power to control federal funding and use it as a weapon against his political opponents, but also of his dangerous disregard for the rule of law and the authority of both Congress and federal judges. His office has sued the administration more than 40 times since January, many times over funding.

“It is not something that you should have to see, that a federal government, a president of the United States, is so contemptuous of the rule of law and is willing to break it and break it again, get told by a court that they’re violating the law, and then have to be told by a court again,” Bonta said.

And yet, such examples abound, he said. For example, the Justice Department’s repeated attempts to strip California of crime victim funding echoed the Department of Homeland Security’s repeated attempts recently to deny the state disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding, Bonta said.

Homeland Security officials first told states that such funding would be conditioned on their complying with immigration enforcement efforts. California and other states sued, and a federal judge rejected such preconditions as unconstitutional.

The administration then notified the states that refused to comply, including California, that they would simply receive less money — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — while states that cooperate with immigration enforcement would receive more.

California and other Democratic-led states sued again, arguing this week that the shifting of funds was nothing more than the administration circumventing the court’s earlier ruling against the conditioning of funds outright.

Bonta’s office cited a similar pattern in announcing Thursday that the Trump administration had backed off major cuts to AmeriCorps funding. The win came only after successive rounds of litigation by the state and others, Bonta’s office noted, including an amended complaint accusing the administration of continuing to withhold the funding despite an earlier court order barring it from doing so.

Bonta said such shifting strategies were the work of a “consistently and brazenly lawless and lawbreaking federal administration,” and that his office was “duty-bound” to fight back and will — as many times as it takes.

“It can’t be that you take an action, are held accountable, a court finds that you’ve acted unlawfully, and then you just take another unlawful action to try to restrict or withhold that same funding,” he said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, said he agreed with Bonta that there is “a pattern of ignoring court orders or trying to circumvent them” on the part of the Trump administration.

And he provided another example: a case in which he represents University of California faculty and researchers challenging Trump administration cuts to National Science Foundation funding.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought talks to reporters outside the White House on Monday, accompanied by House Speaker Mike Johnson, left, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Vice President JD Vance.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

After a judge blocked the administration from terminating that funding, the Trump administration responded by declaring that the funds were “suspended” instead, Chemerinsky said.

The judge then ruled the administration was violating her order against termination, he said, as “calling them suspensions rather than terminations changed nothing.”

Mitchel Sollenberger, a political science professor at University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of several books on executive powers, said Trump aggressively flexing those powers was expected. Conservative leaders have been trying to restore executive authority ever since Congress reined in the presidency after Watergate, and Trump took an aggressive approach in his first term, too, Sollenberger said.

However, what Trump has done this term has nonetheless been stunning, Sollenberger said — the result of a sophisticated and well-planned strategy that has been given a clear runway by a Supreme Court that clearly shares a belief in an empowered executive branch.

“It’s like watching water run down, and it tries to find cracks,” Sollenberger said. “That’s what the Trump administration is doing. It’s trying to find those cracks where it can widen the gap and exercise more and more executive power.”

Bonta noted that the administration’s targeting of blue state funding began almost immediately after Trump took office, when the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo asserting that vast sums of federal funding for all sorts of programs were being frozen as the administration assessed whether the spending aligned with Trump’s policy goals.

California and other states sued to block that move and won, but the administration wasn’t swayed from the strategy, Bonta said — as evidenced by more recent events.

On Wednesday, as the government shutdown over Congress’ inability to pass a funding measure set in, Russell Vought — head of the Office of Management and Budget and architect of the Trump administration’s purse-string policies — announced on X that $8 billion in funding “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda” was being canceled. He then listed 16 blue states where projects will be cut.

Vought had broadly outlined his ideas for slashing government in Project 2025, the right-wing playbook for Trump’s second term, which Trump vigorously denied any connection to during his campaign but has since broadly implemented.

On Thursday, Trump seemed to relish the opportunity, amid the shutdown, to implement more of the plan.

“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump posted online. “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

Bonta said Wednesday that his office had no plans to get involved in the shutdown, which he said was caused by Trump and “for Trump to figure out.” But he said he was watching the battle closely.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) chalked Vought’s latest cuts up to more illegal targeting of blue states such as California that oppose Trump politically, writing, “Our democracy is badly broken when a president can illegally suspend projects for Blue states in order to punish his political enemies.”

Cities and towns have also been pushing back against Trump’s use of federal funding as political leverage. On Wednesday, Los Angeles and other cities announced a lawsuit challenging the cuts to disaster funding.

L.A. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto said the cuts were part of an “unprecedented weaponization” of federal funding by the Trump administration, and that she was proud to be fighting to “preserve constitutional limits on executive overreach.”

THREE suspected Hamas terrorists appeared in court in Germany yesterday as police claimed to have foiled a chilling terror plot.

The trio – caught with weapons including an AK47 assault rifle, pistols and ammunition – were feared to be about to export October 7-style horror to Europe.

1

Investigators believed they were plotting attacks on Israeli or Jewish sites – like the synagogue attacked in Manchester yesterday.

Germany’s federal prosecutor alleged that they had been procuring firearms in recent months to prepare for a terrorist massacre.

Several pistols and a large cache of ammunition were among weapons taken when police swooped 24 hours before the Manchester attack.

No evidence of a connection between the two incidents had emerged last night – but fears of Palestinian terror spreading across Europe was sparking security concerns.

Two of the Berlin suspects are German citizens but the third was said to have been born in Lebanon.

They were named only as – named as Abed Al G, Wael F M and Ahmad I.

Hamas has carried out hundreds of attacks against Israeli civilians but rarely operated outside the region and they denied involvement.

Details of the plot remained unclear last night – and it was also uncertain whether they were acting on Hamas orders or were self-motivated Palestinian sympathisers.

The worrying arrests came as Hamas appeared spent as a fighting force in Gaza as Donald Trump called on them to surrender or face an unbridled Israeli onslaught.

A German federal judge ruled that the Berlin trio should remain in jail ahead of a full trial for alleged membership in a foreign terrorist organization and plotting serious acts of violence.

Police arrested members of Hamas in Berlin in December 2023 when four suspects were feared to be plotting to attack Jewish institutions in Europe.

A court in Manchester in the United Kingdom has sentenced seven men to prison terms ranging from 12 to 35 years for the systematic sexual abuse of two teenage girls in Rochdale, in the north of England, between 2001 and 2006.

Mohammed Zahid, a 65-year-old market trader and the group’s ringleader, received the longest sentence on Wednesday after being convicted of multiple counts of rape and other sexual offences against both victims.

Six other men, aged between 39 and 67, were also convicted following a four-month trial that concluded in June.

They formed part of what would later be referred to as “grooming gangs” by UK media and be used in toxic public discourse by the far right as a means to demonise British Asians and Muslims.

The girls, who did not know each other, were both 13 years old when the abuse began.

Prosecutors presented evidence that the victims, both from troubled family backgrounds, were initially offered gifts, money, and places to stay. The abuse escalated as they were taken to various locations across the town, where they were given alcohol and drugs before being sexually assaulted by the members of the group.

Both victims provided impact statements during the three-day sentencing hearing. One described how the abuse had affected every aspect of her life, from her physical and mental health to her ability to form relationships. The other said that, at the time, she believed all men would expect sex from her and urged other victims to come forward regardless of how much time had passed.

The case represents part of ongoing legal proceedings addressing historical child sexual exploitation in Rochdale, which first came to public attention in the early 2010s. Local authorities and the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have acknowledged failures in their duty to protect the victims.

Stephen Watson, the chief constable of GMP, issued an apology in April 2022, admitting that the force had been “borderline incompetent” in the way it managed the issue. The force, along with other local institutions, had failed to act despite warnings, according to a 2022 government-commissioned report, which led to an impression that the local council and police were downplaying “the ethnic dimensions of child sexual exploitation”.

Estimates from a 2014 report suggested the number of victims who may have been exploited by men primarily of Pakistani heritage in such cases is at least 1,400.

However, the vast majority of sexual cases in the UK continue to be perpetrated by white men.

The issue was raised again in the UK earlier this year when US tech billionaire Elon Musk began using his X account to accuse Prime Minister Keir Starmer of being complicit due to his role as head of the Crown Prosecution Service at the time. The government rejected the allegations.

Other figures later seized on the issue, explicitly linking the perpetrators’ ethnicity to their crimes and blaming a culture of permissiveness towards minorities for blocking investigations, despite evidence to the contrary.

Far-right agitator Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known widely as Tommy Robinson, frequently campaigned on the issue, blaming the UK’s Muslim community and accusing the government of a cover-up, and got Musk’s backing due to his belief that Robinson, who has been repeatedly convicted of other crimes, was blowing the whistle on the issue.

Musk called for a new national inquiry into the rape gangs, as did some politicians. Starmer initially said an inquiry had taken place and the recommendations needed to be implemented, but later changed his position and backed the calls.

Starmer told the BBC that another transparent inquiry would help improve public confidence in authorities. “That, to me, is a practical, common-sense way of doing politics,” he said.

A preliminary report released in June by Baroness Louise Casey said data on the issue was poor and in many cases non-existent, which made determining whether any ethnic group was overrepresented very difficult.

“If you look at the data on child exploitation, suspects and offenders, it is disproportionately Asian heritage,” Casey said. “If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, and it is white men.”

Following Casey’s report, then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the government had accepted the report’s recommendations, including the strengthening of rape law and protection for children.

Speaking in the House of Commons in June, Cooper added: “While much more robust national data is needed, we cannot and must not shy away from these findings, because, as Baroness Casey says, ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities.”

When LeBron James was asked about how a former defensive player of the year and a former No. 1 overall pick could elevate the Lakers roster, the superstar instead offered a different offseason addition’s name first.

“And Jake,” James added quickly during his Lakers media day news conference after a question about center Deandre Ayton and guard Marcus Smart.

Jake LaRavia’s signing came with less fanfare than the moves that brought Smart and Ayton to the Lakers, but the 6-foot-7 wing hopes he can be equally as influential in a quiet connector role behind some of the league’s biggest stars.

“We got a lot of dudes on this team that can score, a lot of dudes on this team that can put the ball in the bucket,” LaRavia said Wednesday at Lakers training camp. “So I’m here to complement those players, but to also just bring energy every day on both sides of the ball.”

The 19th overall pick in 2022, LaRavia is a career 42.9% three-point shooter, averaging 6.9 points and 3.3 rebounds per game. After beginning his career with the Memphis Grizzlies, he was traded to the Sacramento Kings last season, playing in 19 games. His team option wasn’t picked up, putting the 23-year-old on the free agency market.

The Lakers, in need of three-and-D players to pair with Luka Doncic, were quick to call.

“To get a young player — a young player in free agency for a team that is trying to win a championship — it’s an incredible opportunity for myself and our player development department to have him continue to grow,” coach JJ Redick said last week. “Jake, I’m very high on him. His level of commitment to what we’ve asked of the guys this offseason has been very high.”

Two days into training camp, LaRavia said he’s been asked to guard four different positions. He’s played often with Doncic’s group and marveled at the five-time All-Star’s impressive array of shots. One of his main objectives during training camp will be to understand how to best to space the court when the ball is in Doncic’s hands.

“It’s gonna make my life so much easier playing with someone like that,” LaRavia said.

LaRavia, who was born in Pasadena but moved to Indianapolis as a child, grew up rooting for the Lakers. Following his father’s fandom, LaRavia said he idolized Magic Johnson.

Now sporting the purple and gold himself, LaRavia is realizing that the team is bigger than just basketball, he said. Compared to his experiences in Memphis and Sacramento, it is obvious the Lakers brand stretches globally.

While suddenly in the spotlight, LaRavia has tried to keep a low profile. He was married a few days before training camp started. He relishes the chance to go unnoticed at local restaurants.

He wants to be recognized only for his wins on the court.

“I understand what this organization wants every year, which is championships,” LaRavia said at media day. “It’s a winning organization, and my one goal being here is just to continue to provide rings.”

Gabe Vincent fully participates in practice

James was held out of practice for the second straight day Wednesday, but still participated in individual drills, Redick said. Guard Gabe Vincent, who missed the first day of training camp, returned to practice and appears to still be on track to play in the Lakers’ first preseason game in Palm Desert on Friday against the Phoenix Suns.

Smart (achilles tendinopathy) and rookie Adou Thiero (knee) remained out, although Smart stayed on the court after practice for extra shots. Redick said Tuesday he expected the 31-year-old guard to be fine by the end of the week.

Forward Maxi Kleber sat out as a precaution after tweaking his quad during conditioning Tuesday and will get an MRI exam, Redick said. Kleber, who missed almost all of last season with a foot injury after being traded to the Lakers in February, said at media day he was entering the season fully healthy.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday put off a decision on whether President Trump can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and said it would hear arguments on the case in January.

The court’s action allows Cook to remain in her position, and it prevents Trump from taking majority control of the historically independent central bank board.

Last month, the president said he fired Cook “for cause,” citing mortgage documents she signed in 2021 confirming that two different properties were her primary residence.

But the flap over her mortgages arose as Trump complained that the Federal Reserve Board, including Cook, had not lowered interest rates to his satisfaction.

“We will have a majority very shortly,” Trump said after he fired Cook.

In September, Trump appointed Stephen Miran, the chair of of his White House Council of Economic Advisers, to serve a temporary term on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board. He joined two other Trump appointees.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook to a temporary term in 2022 and to a full term a year later.

In August, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, he said she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Mortgage lenders usually offer a lower interest rate for a borrower’s primary residence.

Cook has not directly refuted the allegation about her mortgage documents, but her attorneys said she told the lender she was seeking the Atlanta condo as a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25 that said, “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook refused to step down and filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegation did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest it.

A federal judge in Washington agreed and blocked her firing, noting that unproven allegation of mortgage fraud occurred before she was appointed to the Federal Reserve.

In a 2-1 vote, the appeals court also refused to uphold her firing.

Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Sept. 18 arguing Congress gave the president the authority to fire a Fed governor he concludes she is not trustworthy.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” wrote Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

But the justices refused to act on an emergency appeal and decided they will give the case a full hearing and a written decision.

Oct. 1 (UPI) — A new Gallup Poll has suggested the popularity of the U.S. Supreme Court is pushing an all-time low, with more than 40% of Americans saying they believe the court is “too conservative” in its judicial leanings.

The new survey released Wednesday by Washington-based Gallup says the overall popularity of the nation’s high court remains at a near record-low approval rating of 43%. Just 36% in Gallup’s long-watched polling hold the court’s largely conservative rulings are “about right” while 17% say its “too liberal.”

The court saw a high 80% approval in 1999 and Gallup readings between 1972 and 2020 “usually” exceeded the 60% mark, according to Gallup.

But one primary reason the Supreme Court’s approval has been lower in the past 15 years is because “its ratings have become increasingly split along party lines,” officials said in a release.

On Wednesday, Gallup noted that “no more than 33% had ever” characterized the court as too conservative.

It added that was prior to the court’s 6-3 shift to a conservative majority after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in October 2020.

Gallup’s public opinion survey data extends back decades in its effort to gauge American sentiment on critical topics and issues.

Wednesday’s polling by Gallup comes after its revelation last month that, in August, the court’s overall approval rating was for the first time below 40%.

“When Gallup first measured Supreme Court job approval in the early 2000s, ratings were typically near 60%,” it said on X.

The United States Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her post. The court’s announcement means Cook will stay in the job for now.

The high court announced the decision on Wednesday.

The White House has been trying to remove Cook in the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official, an unprecedented challenge to central bank independence.

The justices declined to immediately decide a Department of Justice request to put on hold a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Republican president from removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, while litigation over the termination continues in a lower court.

The justices said they would hear the case in January.

In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, such as allowing governors to be removed by a president only “for cause”, although the law does not define the term or establish procedures for removal. The law has never been tested in court.

Washington, DC-based US District Judge Jia Cobb on September 9 ruled that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies, likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.

Trump on August 25 said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s Board of Governors, citing allegations that before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favourable terms on a mortgage. Her term is set to expire in 2038.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump soon after. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give the president the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on September 15 denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold.

Expansive view of presidential powers

In a series of decisions in recent months, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove members of various federal agencies that Congress had established as independent from direct presidential control despite similar job protections for those posts. The decisions suggest that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, may be ready to jettison a key 1935 precedent that preserved these protections in a case that involved the US Federal Trade Commission.

But the court has signalled that it could treat the Fed as distinct from other executive branch agencies, noting in May in a case involving Trump’s dismissal of two Democratic members of federal labour boards that the Fed “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a singular historical tradition.

Trump’s bid to fire Cook reflects the expansive view of presidential power he has asserted since returning to office in January. As long as the president identifies a cause for removal, Cook’s sacking is within his “unreviewable discretion”, the Department of Justice said in a September 18 filing to the Supreme Court.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself – and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” the filing stated.

Cook’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on September 25 that granting Trump’s request, “would eviscerate the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence, upend financial markets and create a blueprint for future presidents to direct monetary policy based on their political agendas and election calendars”.

A group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties also urged the Supreme Court not to let Trump fire Cook.

The group included the past three Fed chairs, Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. In a brief to the court, they wrote that allowing this dismissal would threaten the Fed’s independence and erode public confidence in it.

Cook took part in the Fed’s highly anticipated two-day meeting in Washington, DC, in September, at which the central bank decided to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as policymakers responded to concerns about weakness in the job market. Cook was among those voting in favour of the cut.

Pressure on Fed

Concerns about the Fed’s independence from the White House in setting monetary policy could have a ripple effect throughout the global economy.

The case has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently and carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.

Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull,” “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron”.

Oct. 1 (UPI) — Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook will be permitted to stay on the central bank board at least through next year after legal questions over her termination by U.S. President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Cook can remain on the job on an interim basis into 2026, and agreed to hear oral arguments in January with a likely ruling before June’s end.

The nation’s high court, however, did not explain the basis of its decision in the brief ruling.

In August, Trump fired Cook over his claims of mortgage fraud which Cook has since denied.

No justice dissented in the rare break from a majority that typically has ruled on the side of the Trump administration over other legal issues.

Trump requested Supreme Court intervention in mid-September, but Cook fought back arguing that he does not have the authority.

U.S. presidents under the Federal Reserve Act are forbidden from arbitrarily removing a federal reserve governor unless evidence of wrongdoing presented a “for cause” reason to do so.

Cook sued Trump over the attempted ousting, citing constitutional protections guaranteed to her as an official of the independent federal board.

On Wednesday, a legal analyst said the court’s ruling on Cook means justices are saying: “we’re not going to act immediately.”

“It wouldn’t end the fight,” MSNBC legal commentator Lisa Rubin commented on a news program on January’s looming Supreme Court hearing on Cook.

According to Rubin, the Fed’s Cook could “continue to fight on the merits weather or not (Trump) is legally entitled to fire her for the long-term.”

MYLEENE Klass today told a court she felt “sheer terror” after allegedly being targeted by a stalker who sent her gifts.

Peter Windsor is accused of hounding the former popstar and her Classic FM colleague Katie Breathwick over a four-year period.

2

2

The 61-year-old allegedly sent Myleene items with “sexual overtones” – including a Catwoman outfit and set of handcuffs.

He also called her a “naughty vixen” and sent a police uniform to the Classic FM studio, Birmingham Crown Court heard.

Giving evidence today, Myleene said she was informed in an email in August last year that an “accumulation” of items had been sent to her.

The 47-year-old became upset when she was asked about being told how Royal Mail had “intercepted” an air pistol addressed to her.

She said “it just felt extreme on every front” after she was shown a list of items and photographs of letters Windsor allegedly sent.

Myleene added: “It was very clear very quickly that it was a highly volatile selection of items.

“It was a huge shock, especially the extent to which it had escalated.

“It was pretty overwhelming when you have the accumulation of a bundle of this information. It’s pretty terrifying.”

The ex-Hear’Say star described the overall context of all the items as “pretty bleak”.

She added: “It’s a huge violation. It’s sheer terror really.”

Myleene told the court how she was informed by police in September last year that an air gun had been intercepted by the Royal Mail.

She continued: “He said to me that whilst the gun wasn’t necessary for a licence in this country, at such close proximity right up to 6ft it could prove fatal and police took it very seriously.

“I was extremely shocked because suddenly it felt extremely real.

“This was very clear what the intention was. There was no grey area here.

“It’s a gun in a box with my name on it.”

The court was told Windsor also stalked Myleene’s Classic FM co-presenter Katie Breathwick.

She is said to have received a stamp collection, bottle of champagne, a will-writing kit and running shoes with spikes on among other bizarre letters and parcels.

Police later arrested Windsor at his home in Birmingham and found a number of items that caused them concern.

They included a map of London where the women worked, a pair of black leather gloves, ladies stockings and a pair of binoculars.

Windsor later told police he sent Klass items as a joke after seeing her in “provocative underwear” in a newspaper.

He denies two counts of stalking and the trial continues.

A MANHUNT has been launched for a lag who escaped a prison van on his way from court.

Cops are urging the public not to approach Sid Kemp, 31, who went on the run yesterday.

Kemp escaped the transport vehicle after appearing at Southend Magistrates’ Court and was last seen at The Clusters, heading towards Boston Avenue.

He is described as white, 6ft tall and with short black hair.

The wanted man was wearing a grey tracksuit – and is not thought to be a risk to the wider public.

Superintendent Jamie Gingell said: “We’re carrying out extensive enquiries to trace Sid Kemp.

“We would ask anyone who sees him to please call 999 rather than approaching him, or if you have information as to his whereabouts, please call.

“Alternatively, you can call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.”

1

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court bolstered the nation’s clean-water protections for oceans and beaches on Thursday, ruling that environmentalists can sue to block discharges of sewage into the ground if those pollutants flow in significant amounts from there into the ocean.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high court said the Clean Water Act forbids not only direct discharges of sewage or other pollution into the ocean or bays, but also their “functional equivalent,” if it is shown that sewage is ending up along the beaches.

The justices upheld lawsuits from four environmental groups in Hawaii that had sued over sewage that was flowing from treatment plants through the groundwater and into the ocean off Maui.

The county of Maui, with the support of the Trump administration, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Clean Water Act protected only against “direct discharges” of pollutants into waterways and not pollution from ground water.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, speaking for the court, disagreed in County of Maui vs. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. “We conclude that the statutory provisions at issue require a permit if the addition of the pollutants through groundwater is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters,” he said.

Time and distance are key factors, he said, in deciding whether pollution flowing through the groundwater can be attributed to a treatment facility.

His opinion did not go as far as the 9th Circuit Court, which had decided that the law’s permitting rule applies to any water pollution which is “fairly traceable” to pollution flowing into the ground. That goes too far, Breyer said, because it could extend to 650,000 wells and 20 million septic tanks nationwide, most of which are distant from a river or bay.

But the court’s rule should cover significant discharges of pollutants that flow through the groundwater to protected waters.

“This decision is a huge victory for clean water,” said David Henkin, an attorney from the environmental public interest group Earthjustice who argued the case. “The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act’s protections for rivers, lakes and oceans.”

The high court remanded the case to the 9th Circuit to apply the new standard.

The county of Maui operates a wastewater reclamation facility on the island of Maui, Hawaii. The facility collects sewage from the surrounding area, partially treats it, and pumps the treated water through four wells hundreds of feet underground. This effluent, amounting to about 4 million gallons each day, then travels a further half mile or so, through groundwater, to the ocean. Studies found that the pollution had damaged the coral reef near a Maui beach.

The law requires obtaining a permit before discharging pollutants from a “point source” into protected waterways, like a river or bay. At issue was whether the county could be sued for failing to obtain a clean-water permit before discharging pollutants that flowed underground into the ocean. This law can be enforced through “citizen suits” and four groups — the Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and West Maui Preservation Assn. — joined to file suit against the county of Maui.

The Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama had supported the environmentalists when the suits were before a judge in Hawaii. But the Trump administration switched sides and supported the county in its effort to limit the reach of the law.

Joining Breyer’s opinion were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters,” said Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own 18-page dissent deriding the “functional equivalent” standard. “If the court is going to devise its own legal rules, instead of interpreting those enacted by Congress, it might at least adopt rules that can be applied with a modicum of consistency. Here, however, the court makes up a rule that provides no clear guidance and invites arbitrary and inconsistent application,” he wrote.

The ruling applies not just to oceans, but also to waterways across the country, and it could pose problems for the operators of wastewater treatment plants as well as large hog farms. A coalition of California water agencies had urged the court to reverse the 9th Circuit and rule the Clean Water Act did not extend to pollution from groundwater.

Michael Kimberly, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of agricultural business organizations, said the court’s new rule “is amorphous and leaves much to be desired. It leaves countless responsible landowners potentially liable for discharges from ‘point sources’ to ‘navigable waters’ that aren’t actually anything of the sort. I would hope and expect an EPA and Army Corps of Engineers rule-making to elaborate the standard in more concrete terms, which the opinion expressly invites.”

LeBron James did not participate in the Lakers’ first day of training camp Tuesday because of “nerve irritation in the glute.”

James’ teammates Marcus Smart, Gabe Vincent and Adou Thiero were “under either return to play protocols or modified protocols” during the team’s first sessions.

James is entering his NBA-record 23rd season and the goal is to ramp him up to be ready for the regular-season opener Oct. 21 against the Golden State Warriors at Crypto.com Arena.

“Yeah, I think it’s probably a little bit longer of a ramp-up leading into opening night for him just obviously in Year 23, it’s uncharted territory here,” Lakers coach JJ Redick said. “So, I felt, and in talking with performance and in talking with Mike (Mancias, James’ personal trainer) and LeBron, like probably did too much last year in camp, which was great for me as a first-year head coach to get buy-in from him.

“But it’ll be a slower process with him leading into the first game. He’s obviously got 22 years so far of wear and tear on the body and he’s dealing with a little bit of nerve irritation in the glute. So, we’re just playing the long game with LeBron.”

Redick said Vincent was “just modified” and the hope is that he’ll play in the preseason game Friday against the Phoenix Suns in Palm Desert.

“He should be good to go live by the end of the week and we expect him to be able to play Friday,” Redick said. “And that’s just, again, the management of, as we did last year as well.”

Smart could be seen shooting after practice, but the Lakers are taking it slow with him as well.

“Marcus, he’s dealing with a little bit of Achilles’ tendinopathy,” Redick said. “He’s been in a slow ramp-up. He was a modified participant, nothing live today. He’s expected to be fine by the end of the week.”

Thiero said Monday that he still has some “swelling” in his left knee that kept him out playing in the summer league in Las Vegas and has slowed his time on the court since then.

Redick said Thiero was running, cutting and jumping with coaches, but that they will take it slow with him.

“It’s really about playing the long game with him,” Redick said. “We look at this year as a developmental year and there’s no reason for us to push his body and create a long-term problem. His knee is in a really good spot. We just want to be really careful.”

Redick said, “that’s the goal,” when asked if James will be ready to play in the season opener.

James, 40, has played 71,104 minutes over his career, including the playoffs.

“You’ll hear me use this a lot: it is unchartered territory,” Redick said. “I don’t think there’s a proven way to handle someone who has this much mileage, this many minutes, been asked to do so many things on both ends of the court. We asked a lot of him last year, we asked a lot of him to start the year in camp, so it’s just working as a partnership and trying to figure it out.”

Even with James not practicing, Austin Reaves said it won’t be a problem for the three leaders to find ways to make it smooth for their teammates.

Along with James and Luka Doncic, Reaves is viewed as one of the Lakers’ stars and he says James always is engaged even when he doesn’t practice.

“Yeah, just communication,” Reaves said. “To have good dialogue back and forth, what everybody likes, what we can do to be successful. With him being one of the highest IQ guys to ever play the game, I think it’s not that hard to piece it in even if he’s not out there right now, He sees the game just as good as anybody that has ever played the game. So, like I said, it’s having conversations, dialogue back and forth what we feel like we can do to help our team be successful is going to be, I think, key.”

Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Monday filed a lawsuit against so-called sanctuary policies in Minnesota as the Trump administration tries to have the court compel Democratic-led regions to abide by its immigration policies.

The lawsuit targets the laws of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, arguing that not only are they illegal, they effectively shield “criminal offenders” by obstructing federal law enforcement.

“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”

President Donald Trump, who campaigned on cracking down on immigration, often with the use of incendiary rhetoric and misinformation, has been attempting to conduct mass deportations, and has targeted Democratic-led jurisdictions’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as part of that effort.

In April, he signed an executive order directing Bondi to compile a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions for punishment, with a list of 35 regions being made public early last month.

The Justice Department has already filed lawsuits against five states including Minnesota and several cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago. However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago and other districts in the state in late July, finding the Trump administration “lacked standing” to challenge the laws.

Minnesota is also led by Gov. Tim Walz, a critic of Trump and a rival of the president, having run against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket.

The state has been a target of numerous federal actions by the Trump administration, including investigations over its hiring practices. The president declined to call Walz after a man assassinated a state lawmaker and wounded another in mid-June, calling him “whacked out” and “a mess.”

Late last week, Minnesota was one of six states Trump sued to force handover of its voter registration list.

While Walz has yet to make a public statement about the latest lawsuit, Mayor Melvin Carter of Saint Paul said city employees work for those who live there and not Trump.

“We will stand with our immigrant and refugee neighbors no matter how many unconstitutional claims the White House makes,” he said in a statement.

“We’ve proven our resolve in two successful court actions already this year, and we look forward to winning our third legal victory in a row against this embarrassing federal regime.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey similarly said they would fight the Trump administration.

“We will not back down. We will fight with every bit of our strength for our immigrant communities. We will stand by our neighbors and we’re going to win in court,” he said in a recorded statement published on X.

“So, let’s just be really clear to everybody: this is not an issue where we will back down. We’re going to win this thing.”

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rendered obsolete the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on suspicionless seizures by the police. When the court stayed the district court’s decision in Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, it green-lighted an era of policing in which people can be stopped and seized for little more than how they look, the job they work or the language they speak.

Because the decision was issued on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” the justices’ reasoning is unknown. All we have is Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s solo concurrence defending law enforcement’s use of race and ethnicity as a factor in deciding whom to police, while at the same time playing down the risk that comes with every stop — prolonged detention, wanton violence, wrongful deportation and sometimes even death. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her impassioned dissent (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson): “We should not live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” But now, we do.

The practical effect of this decision is enormous. It strips away what little remained of the guardrails that prevented police (including agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) from indiscriminately seizing anyone with only a flimsy pretext.

Now there is no real limit on police seizures. History teaches us that people of color will bear the brunt of this policing regime, including the millions of immigrants who are already subject to police roundups, sweeps and raids.

This decision is no surprise for those of us who study the 4th Amendment. The police have long needed very little to justify a stop, and racial profiling is not new. Yet prior to the Vasquez Perdomo order in most instances, police had to at least articulate a non-race-based reason to stop someone — even if as minor as driving with a broken taillight, not stopping at a stop sign long enough, or walking away from the police too quickly.

Now, police no longer need race-neutral person-specific suspicion (pretextual or real) to seize someone. Appearing “Latino” — itself an indeterminate descriptor because it is an ethnicity, not defined by shared physical traits — along with speaking Spanish and appearing to work a low-wage job is enough, even if you have done nothing to raise suspicion.

Some might believe that if you have nothing to hide there is no reason to fear a police stop — that if you just show police your papers or offer an explanation you can go on your way. Even if that were the case, this sort of oppressive militarized police state — where anyone can be stopped for any reason — is exactly what the 4th Amendment rejected and was meant to prevent.

Moreover, ICE agents and police are not in the business of carefully examining documents (assuming people have the right ones on them) or listening to explanations. They stop, seize and detain — citizens and noncitizens alike. If lucky, some people are released, but many are not — including citizens suspected of being in the country illegally, or individuals whose only alleged crimes are often minor (and the product of poverty) or living peacefully (often for years) in the United States without legal status. And as evidenced by plaintiffs in this case, even if eventually released, a single stop can mean harassment, violence, detention or a life permanently upended.

Even if the 4th Amendment doesn’t prevent them, can’t race-based discrimination and police violence often be addressed through civil rights lawsuits? U.S. Code Section 1983 allows individuals to sue officials who violate their rights. But the reality plays out differently. In a recent decision, this Supreme Court dramatically limited class-action lawsuits, the primary vehicle that would allow widespread relief. The court has created a world in which law enforcement can largely act with impunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. And there is likely no recourse if a federal official such as an ICE agent violates one’s constitutional rights, as the Supreme Court has sharply limited the ability to sue federal officials for money damages even if they commit a clear constitutional wrong.

The recent decision virtually declaring that the 4th Amendment allows police to engage in express racial profiling may not be the final word on the matter. We hope it isn’t. But longstanding court doctrine had already allowed racial profiling to flourish under the guise of seemingly neutral language of “reasonable suspicion” and “consent.” By allowing a further erosion of the limits on seizures, the Court entrenches a system in which the scope of one’s constitutional rights depends upon the color of one’s skin. If the 4th Amendment is to retain meaning, it must be interpreted to constrain — not enable — the racialized policing practices that have become routine in America.

Daniel Harawa and Kate Weisburd are law professors at NYU Law School and UC Law San Francisco, respectively.

Sept. 27 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to rule on the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision following adverse rulings in lower courts.

President Donald Trump on the first day of his second term in office signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for anyone who does not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, but lower courts have blocked the order’s implementation, according to NBC News.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” the DOJ said in its appeal to the Supreme Court, as reported by USA Today.

“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” the appeal said.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in July ruled in favor of a challenge filed by officials for Washington state and three others.

In a separate case, U.S. District Court of New Hampshire Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a case filed by individuals, which enabled that court’s ruling against the president’s executive order to have national impact.

President George W. Bush appointed Laplante to the federal court in 2007.

The DOJ wants the Supreme Court to review the New Hampshire case and Laplante’s ruling despite the matter being appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The federal appellate court has not ruled on that case.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

An ICE officer has been placed on leave after video emerged of him forcefully shoving an Ecuadorian woman to the ground at a New York immigration courthouse, where her husband was taken into custody.

The acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento has said she was fired after telling the Border Patrol chief in charge of immigration raids in California that his agents were not allowed to arrest people without probable cause in the Central Valley.

Michele Beckwith, a career prosecutor who was made the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California earlier this year, told the New York Times that she was let go after she warned Gregory Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector, that a court injunction blocked him from carrying out indiscriminate immigration raids in Sacramento.

Beckwith did not respond to a request for comment from the L.A. Times, but told the New York Times that “we have to stand up and insist the laws be followed.”

The U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment Friday evening.

Bovino presided over a series of raids in Los Angeles starting in June in which agents spent weeks pursuing Latino-looking workers outside of Home Depots, car washes, bus stops and other areas. The agents often wore masks and used unmarked vehicles.

But such indiscriminate tactics were not allowed in California’s Eastern District after the American Civil Liberties Union and United Farm Workers filed suit against the Border Patrol earlier in the year and won an injunction.

The suit followed a January operation in Kern County called “Operation Return to Sender,” in which agents swarmed a Home Depot and Latino market, among other areas frequented by laborers. In April, a federal district court judge ruled that the Border Patrol likely violated the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

As Beckwith described it to New York Times reporters, she received a phone call from Bovino on July 14 in which he said he was bringing agents to Sacramento.

She said she told him that the injunction filed after the Kern County raid meant he could not stop people indiscriminately in the Eastern District. The next day, she wrote him an email in which, as quoted in the New York Times, she stressed the need for “compliance with court orders and the Constitution.”

Shortly thereafter her work cell phone and her work computer stopped working. A bit before 5 p.m. she received an email informing her that her employment was being terminated effective immediately.

It was the end of a 15-year career in in the Department of Justice in which she had served as the office’s Criminal Division Chief and First Assistant and prosecuted members of the Aryan Brotherhood, suspected terrorists, and fentanyl traffickers.

Two days later on July 17, Bovino and his agents moved into Sacramento, conducting a raid at a Home Depot south of downtown.

In an interview with Fox News that day, Bovino said the raids were targeted and based on intelligence. “Everything we do is targeted,” he said. “We did have prior intelligence that there were targets that we were interested in and around that Home Depot, as well as other targeted enforcement packages in and around the Sacramento area.”

He also said that his operations would not slow down. “There is no sanctuary anywhere,” he said. “We’re here to stay. We’re not going anywhere. We’re going to affect this mission and secure the homeland.”

Beckwith is one of a number of top prosecutors who have quit or been fired as the Trump administration pushes the Department of Justice to aggressively carry out his policies, including investigating people who have been the president’s political targets.

In March, a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles was fired after lawyers for a fast-food executive he was prosecuting pushed officials in Washington to drop all charges against him, according to multiple sources.

In July, Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan and the daughter of former FBI director James Comey, was fired by the Trump administration, according to the New York Times.

And just last week, a U. S. attorney in Virginia was pushed out after he had determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute James B. Comey. A new prosecutor this week won a grand jury indictment against Comey on one count of making a false statement and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

A U.K. judge has thrown out a terror charge against a member of the rap group Kneecap.

Kneecap’s Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a 27-year-old Belfast artist who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, had been charged with allegedly displaying a flag supporting terror group Hezbollah at a show in London last year. (Ó hAnnaidh denied the charges, and said the band doesn’t support Hezbollah.)

At this Friday‘s hearing — one to determine proper jurisdiction — chief magistrate Paul Goldspring said, “I find that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form, lacking the necessary [attorney general or director of public prosecutions] consent within the six-month statutory time limit,” adding that “this court has no jurisdiction to try the charge.”

“These proceedings against the defendant were instituted unlawfully and are null,” Goldspring said, releasing Ó hAnnaidh to raucous cheers from Kneecap supporters — including the rapper’s parents — in the courtroom.

The decision came as relief for Northern Ireland’s First Minister Michelle O’Neill, who posted on social media: “These charges were part of a calculated attempt to silence those who stand up and speak out against the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Kneecap have used their platform on stages across the world to expose this genocide, and it is the responsibility of all of us to continue speaking out and standing against injustice in Palestine.”

Kneecap had recently canceled a U.S. tour, citing the court hearing as an obstacle to performing in the U.S.

Addressing the public outside the courtroom, Ó hAnnaidh said, “This entire process was never about me, never about any threat to the public, never about terrorism. A word used by your government to discredit people you oppress. It was always about Gaza. About what happens if you dare to speak up.”

Relating his Palestinian activism to Ireland’s own history of colonization, he added, “As people from Ireland, we know oppression, colonialism, famine and genocide. We have suffered and still suffer under your empire. Your attempts to silence us have failed, because we’re right and you’re wrong.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Former FBI Director James Comey is a longtime critic of US President Donald Trump, and testified against him in 2020.

Former FBI Director James Comey says he is innocent of criminal charges following his indictment by a United States court for allegedly making false statements and obstruction of justice.

“My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I am innocent, so let’s have a trial and keep the faith,” Comey said in a video posted on Instagram on Thursday evening in the US.

The charges against Comey stem from his 2020 statement to the US Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not authorise the FBI to leak information about an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Comey served as director of the FBI from 2013 to 2017 until he was fired by Trump shortly into his first term in office.

Since then, he has become a well-known critic of the US President.

Trump wrote a celebratory post on Truth Social following news of the ex-FBI chief’s indictment.

“JUSTICE FOR AMERICA!” Trump wrote on Thursday evening in the US.

“One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI,” the US President wrote.

The charges against Comey mark the first time that Trump has secured an indictment against one of his many high-profile critics.

On Saturday, Trump urged US Attorney General Pam Bondi to level charges against Comey as well as California Senator Adam B Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James in a post on Truth Social.