Courts

Alan Jackson steps down as lawyer for Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his mother and father in December.

The high-profile lawyer representing Nick Reiner, who allegedly killed his father, director Rob Reiner, and mother Michele Singer Reiner in December, has resigned.

The announcement that lawyer Alan Jackson would step down from the case means that the younger Reiner will, at least for the time being, be represented by a public defender provided by the state.

During a news conference on Wednesday, Jackson did not provide a reason for his departure, instead citing the legal and ethical reasons he could not provide more details.

“Circumstances beyond our control and, more importantly, circumstances beyond Nick’s control have dictated that, sadly, it’s made it impossible to continue our representation of Nick,” Jackson said.

He added that, after weeks of investigation, “what we’ve learned, and you can take this to the bank, is that pursuant to the laws of this state, pursuant to the law of California, Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder. Print that.”

Jackson did not elaborate.

The lawyer had first appeared in court to represent the 32-year-old suspect just days after Rob Reiner and his wife were found dead on December 14 in their home in the upscale Brentwood neighbourhood of Los Angeles, California.

The cause of death was determined to be “multiple sharp force injuries”, another term for stab wounds.

Jackson, whose past clients include producer Harvey Weinstein and actor Kevin Spacey, did not explain how he was hired or who hired him after Nick Reiner was arrested for the killings.

On Wednesday, Deputy Public Defender Kimberly Greene took over Nick Reiner’s defence in the case.

That came as the defendant, standing behind glass in a custody area of the courtroom and wearing brown jail garb and with his hair shaved, briefly appeared in a Los Angeles court, where he was meant to be arraigned and enter a plea to two charges of first-degree murder.

Instead, the arraignment was postponed to February 23.

“The Public Defender’s Office recognises what an unimaginable tragedy this is for the Reiner family and the Los Angeles community,” Deputy Los Angeles Public Defender Ricardo Garcia said in a statement following the hearing.

“Our hearts go out to the Reiner family as they navigate this difficult time. We ask for your patience and compassion as the case moves through the legal process.”

Rob Reiner’s killing resonated across the world, reflecting the global impact of his films, which included the coming-of-age drama Stand By Me, the courtroom thriller A Few Good Men and the romantic comedy When Harry Met Sally.

Rob and Nick Reiner had previously worked together on a film, Being Charlie, which was partially based on the younger Reiner’s struggles with drug addiction and mental health.

SINGER Richard Ashcroft was banned from driving yesterday by a judge who criticised his repeated speeding.

The Verve frontman, 55, admitted doing 48mph in a 40mph zone in his £145,000 four-litre Mercedes Benz AMG V8.

He already had nine penalty points on his licence before his latest offence on the M4 in Brentford, West London, late on February 19 last year.

He was given three more, taking him to 12 and an automatic ban.

Banning him for six months, district judge Daniel Benjamin said: “Mr Ashcroft put not only himself, but others road users at greater risk of harm.

“The purpose of the penalty points disqualification provision is to enable a person after one offence to change and after a second offence change and after a third offence change and Mr Ashcroft has reached four offences without showing any intention to abide by the speed limit.”

read more on richard ashcroft

‘LUCKY MAN’

What we know about Richard Ashcroft’s wife Kate Radley

‘STILL GOT IT’

Those of us who had IT originally have still got it, says Richard Ashcroft

Dad-of-two Ashcroft, who lives in a £10million house near Richmond Green, South West London, was also fined £1,875, with £880 in costs.

He pleaded guilty by post and did not appear at Lavender Hill magistrates’ court, blaming a pre-arranged commitment.

Charges of speeding on the M4 twice in one day in March were dropped.

Ashcroft led The Verve, known for hit Bitter Sweet Symphony, from 1990 to 2009.

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case about the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The high court on Tuesday added a non-argument/conference date on its website, indicating that it could release its ruling, although the court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs has been one of the most closely watched cases on the court’s docket amid the broader impact on the global economy.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said such a ruling would be a “terrible blow” to the US.

“Because of Tariffs, our Country is financially, AND FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT, FAR STRONGER AND MORE RESPECTED THAN EVER BEFORE,” Trump said in another post on Monday.

However, data on this is mixed. The US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2025, marking the biggest increase in two years. Meanwhile, US job growth has slowed, with sectors heavily exposed to tariffs seeing little to no job growth.

“Jobs in sectors with higher import exposure grew more slowly than jobs in sectors with lower import exposure, suggesting tariffs may have weighed on employment,” Johannes Matschke, senior economist for the Kansas City branch of the Federal Reserve, said in an analysis in December.

Legal arguments

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2025 on goods imported from individual countries to address, what he called, a national emergency related to US trade deficits.

Arguments challenging the legality of the decision began in November. At the time, the court’s liberal and some conservative justices had doubts about the legality of using the 1977 act.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed during his first term, was among those sceptical.

“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” Gorsuch said at the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Solicitor General D John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the administration, that imposing tariffs and taxes “has always been the core power of Congress”.

The act grants broad executive authority to wield economic power in the case of a national emergency.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the lower courts ruled against the Trump administration, finding that the use of the law exceeded the administration’s authority.

Among the courts that ruled against the White House was the Court of International Trade. In May, the New York court said that Congress, and not the executive branch, has “exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. This decision was upheld in a Washington, DC, appeals court in August.

Legal experts believe it is likely that the high court will uphold lower court decisions.

“My sense is that, given the different justices’ concerns, the Supreme Court will decide that IEEPA does not provide the ability for the Trump administration to adopt the tariffs,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

If the Trump administration were to lose the case, the US would need to refund some of the tariffs.

“It [ruling against the administration] would mean that those who paid tariffs that were imposed illegally would have to be reimbursed. I would think that that would be the outcome,” Shaffer added.

In September, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on NBC’s Meet the Press that the US would “have to give a refund on about half the tariffs”.

The Trump administration has said that if the Supreme Court does not rule in its favour, it will use other statutes to push through tariffs.

The UN human rights office says the US military intervention that ousted Venezuela’s leader violates international law and the UN Charter, warning it undermines global security and risks worsening human rights. It says Venezuela’s future must be decided by its people.

Venezuelan state TV footage shows Vice President Delcy Rodriguez being formally sworn in as interim president in Caracas days after President Nicolas Maduro was abducted to face narco-terrorism charges in New York.

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.

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

IT’S fair to assume Will Smith had high hopes for a better year ahead after a disastrous stretch of career lows and romance woes.

But as 2026 rang in, the fallen Oscar-winner and rapper was slapped with a lawsuit amid claims of sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

Violinist Brian King Joseph, who performed on Will’s 2025 tour, Based On A True Story, accuses the A-lister of “grooming” him while they worked together.

And he alleges that when he reported things to management, he was kicked off the tour and “shamed” by the powers that be.

According to Brian, who reached the top three on America’s Got Talent in 2018, he was hired by Will in 2024 after auditioning for him at his home.

Will apparently told him: “You and I have a special connection.”

TRAGIC LOSS

Tommy Lee Jones’ daughter ‘found dead on New Year’s Day in luxury hotel’

‘PREDATOR’ SMITH

Will Smith sued for sexual harassment by male tour violinist & TV star

Then, while touring with him in Las Vegas last March, he says he came back to his hotel room at 11pm and found it had been “unlawfully entered” by an “unknown person”, who had left a handwritten note, as well as random items including wipes, a beer bottle, an earring and a bottle of HIV medication.

The note read: “Brian, I’ll be back no later [sic] 5:30, just us” with a drawn heart, and signed: “Stone F.”

In legal filings, Brian says he reported the incident to hotel security and Will’s management out of fear someone would return to his room to “engage in sexual acts” with him.

But after doing so, he alleges, he was “shamed” by tour management and given the boot, causing him “severe emotional distress, economic loss, reputational harm and other damages” as well as “PTSD and other mental illness”.

‘Lost all self-control’

According to the lawsuit, a member of Will’s tour management told Brian, “Everyone is telling me that what happened to you is a lie, nothing happened, and you made the whole thing up”, court documents state.

Though not naming Will, 57, as the unknown person who entered his room, court papers say the “facts suggest” the star was “deliberately grooming and priming Mr Joseph for further sexual exploitation”.

He is now demanding a jury trial.

Will denies all allegations, with his attorney Allen B. Grodsky slamming Brian’s claims as “false, baseless and reckless”.

He added: “They are categorically denied, and we will use all legal means available to . . . ensure that the truth is brought to light.”

A court battle would be an ugly circus for Will at a time when he could really use some good news in the public eye.

After all, things have ostensibly gone from bad to worse for the former blockbuster king over the past few years.

It’s now approaching the four-year anniversary of the Oscar slap that was heard around the world, when an irate Will stormed the stage at the 94th Academy Awards and hit comedian Chris Rock across the face.

The incident was sparked after Chris made a joke about Will’s wife Jada Pinkett Smith’s bald head, which was a result of her alopecia, and amid Will’s calls to “keep my wife’s name out of your f***ing mouth!”.

It was supposed to be Will’s night of triumph as he finally received an Oscar for his critically acclaimed performance in King Richard.

Instead, it went down in infamy as the night he lost all self-control.

He was duly given a seven-year ban from all Academy, Grammy, Tony and Emmy events and, in the aftermath, shirked the spotlight.

Since then, things haven’t gone smoothly.

In fact, his road to redemption has been paved with constant knocks and embarrassing detours, personally and professionally.

In particular, his unconventional relationship with Jada, 54, has been the subject of much scrutiny and confusion.

Having long been pegged as one of Hollywood’s golden couples, the pair hit headlines in 2020 when they revealed during an episode of Jada’s Facebook series Red Table Talk that she’d had an affair a few years before with singer August Alsina.

At the time, Jada described it as an “entanglement”.

As a result, she and Will had even more of a point to prove when they stepped on to the red carpet at that fateful 2022 Oscars.

But a year later, Jada dropped a motherlode of truth bombs about their relationship in her 2023 memoir, Worthy.

In the book, and on its promo trail, she revealed that — despite putting on a united front in public — she and Will had been separated for seven years and no longer lived together.

According to Jada, she’d kept up the facade because Will “wasn’t ready” to tell the world.

So instead, she said, she took the bullet, painting herself as “the adulterous wife” in the “false narrative” they created.

While the pair had no intention of divorcing — and still have not done so — Will was reportedly “humiliated” by Jada’s candidness.

They used to live by their famous slogan, paraphrased from Will’s movie Bad Boys: “We ride together, we die together, bad marriage for life.”

But Jada’s revelations apparently left Will feeling more isolated than ever — which, insiders said at the time, was a bitter pill to swallow after he defended her at the Oscars.

Crashed and burned

As things stand, Will and Jada still have no plans to officially end their 28-year marriage.

They came together to wish their daughter Willow a happy birthday in October, and have since been reportedly pictured together in public.

But as news spread of Brian’s lawsuit against Will, Jada stayed noticeably quiet.

She previously said that, at some stage, they’ll live together again, but only because, “it’s getting apparent to me that [Will’s] gonna need someone to take care of him” — making her ex sound more like a burden.

Meanwhile, Will’s attempt to reclaim his place on the A-list have seen things go from bad to worse.

In late 2023, as the dust settled on Jada’s marriage revelations, Will was accused of previously having sex with his Fresh Prince of Bel-Air co-star Duane Martin.

In an interview with internet personality Tasha K, Brother Bilaal — who described himself as Will’s ex-personal assistant — said he’d walked in on the alleged act.

A court battle would be an ugly circus for Will at a time when he could really use some good news in the public eye

On podcast Unwine with Tasha K, he also compared the size of Will’s manhood to a “pinky toe”.

In response, Will’s spokesperson slammed the claims as “completely fabricated” and said they were considering taking legal action.

No action was taken, but Brother Bilaal hasn’t gone quietly.

In fact, he’s since filed a $3million lawsuit against Jada, alleging “emotional distress”.

Neither Will nor Jada have commented, but a hearing is scheduled for March 9, inevitably casting another shadow over them.

Then, of course, there is Will’s damp squib of an attempt to reignite his music career that crashed and burned with last year’s tour.

In late 2023, as the dust settled on Jada’s marriage revelations, Will was accused of previously having sex with his Fresh Prince of Bel-Air co-star Duane Martin

Having long proven himself as a multi- hyphenate entertainer, it should have been a safe bet for Will to return to his rapper roots after his Oscar disgrace.

That way, he could continue to make us miss him on the big screen, while still connecting to his fans and making up for a few years of lost income.

So, his comeback tour, Based On A True Story, really was supposed to be an all-out triumph.

‘Used to be cool’

However, promotional footage started going viral for all the wrong reasons, after fans accused the star of using AI in crowd reactions.

In the film — which was posted to Will’s YouTube channel — there were a whole host of bizarre visual errors, including blurred faces, oddly shaped hands and one sign that read “FR6SH CRINCE”.

As one fan said: “Imagine being this rich and famous and having to use AI footage of crowds and bot comments on your video. Tragic, man. You used to be cool.”

Will looked a shadow of his former self as he kicked off the European leg of his tour in front of 6,000 fans in Scarborough at TK Maxx Presents . . . last summer, followed by Wolverhampton Civic Hall and the O2 Academy in Brixton.

Let’s remember, this is a former superstar who performed in front of more than half-a-million people at the Live 8 event in Philadelphia in 2005.

Imagine being this rich and famous and having to use AI footage of crowds and bot comments on your video. Tragic, man. You used to be cool

A fan

The same year, he set a Guinness World Record after attending an unprecedented three movie premieres in one day.

He hightailed it across the UK to promote romcom Hitch in Manchester, Birmingham and London.

Back then, he was untouchable, with two US No1s under his belt and the ability to command leading- man status in films including Men In Black (and its sequels), as well as Ali, The Pursuit Of Happyness and I Am Legend.

But nothing lasts for ever, and Will’s much more modest tour last year was a reminder of how far he’s fallen from grace.

He put on a brave face, but the online comments spoke for themselves.

One fan called him “pathetic” and told him to “enjoy” his retirement instead of seeking his former glory.

Now, as the former Hollywood icon begins the year facing a lawsuit, it’s fair to say he is staring down the barrel of yet another challenging 12 months.

Having always relied on his family to support him, the world will be watching to see if he steps out with Jada and their children, Jaden, 27, and Willow, 25 — plus his older son Trey, 33, from a previous marriage.

But as things stand, all parties had yesterday remained silent.

It may be early days for 2026, but Will has certainly taken a sharp detour from the golden road he trod for so long.

With no movies on the docket, he’s hanging his hat on upcoming National Geographic docu-series, Pole To Pole With Will Smith.

Federal authorities in the United States have accused an 18-year-old of plotting to carry out a “potential terrorist attack” on New Year’s Eve in the suburban town of Mint Hill, North Carolina, outside Charlotte.

On Friday, officials from the US Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified the suspect as Mint Hill resident Christian Sturdivant, a US citizen. The targets of Sturdivant’s alleged plans were a grocery store and a fast-food restaurant in Mint Hill.

“ Countless lives were saved here,” US Attorney Russ Ferguson said at a news conference.

“On New Year’s Eve, everyone is at the grocery store. We’re all buying the things we need to celebrate. And we could have had a significant, significant loss of life, a significant injury here.”

Ferguson explained that Sturdivant was arrested on New Year’s Eve, the day of his planned attack. The 18-year-old has been charged with “attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organisation”, and he made his first court appearance on Friday.

Sturdivant faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, according to Ferguson.

But during his news conference, Ferguson, an appointee of President Donald Trump, appeared to voice frustration with the court system for failing to approve an earlier effort to detain Sturdivant on mental health grounds.

“ I think it is notable that, as part of their efforts, the FBI took Mr Sturdivant to a state magistrate judge to try to have him involuntarily committed,” Ferguson said.

“And that was because he had threatened not only other people’s lives, but in the process said that he planned to die by a policeman shooting him. So he had threatened other people’s lives and self-harm, but the state magistrate judge denied involuntary commitment.”

Authorities later specified that the hearing with the magistrate judge took place on Monday, days before his arrest. Sturdivant, they said, turned 18 last month.

Authorities detail arrest

During Friday’s news conference, officials said this week’s arrest was part of a multiyear effort to investigate Sturdivant, whom they described as a “prolific social media user”.

The suspect had previously been an employee at a local Burger King in North Carolina.

James Barnacle, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s North Carolina field office, said the suspect first came to the bureau’s attention in 2022, after he tried to contact the armed group ISIL (ISIS) through social media.

The US considers ISIL a foreign terrorist organisation and has conducted numerous military operations in the Middle East — and one recently in Nigeria — on the premise of combating the group.

Barnacle alleged that Sturdivant received instructions to knock on doors and attack people with hammers, but his initial attempts were thwarted by his family. He was about 14 years old at the time.

“ No charges were filed at that time,” Barnacle said. “He underwent psychological care, of which I don’t know the details.”

Then, in December, Barnacle said the FBI discovered that Sturdivant had returned to social media and posted threatening messages.

He had also allegedly made contact with two undercover officers: one from the New York Police Department and the second a covert agent with the FBI.

“Within just a few days, Sturdivant direct-messaged the online covert employee with a picture of two hammers and a knife,” Barnacle said. “The message was significant since in recent years an ISIS propaganda magazine promoted the use of knives to conduct terrorist attacks in Western countries.”

Barnacle added that later messages contained a loyalty oath to ISIL and a request for help obtaining firearms.

“The JTTF [Joint Terrorism Task Force] collected evidence showing he turned his back on his country and his fellow citizens by pledging allegiance to ISIS with the intent of becoming a martyr,” Barnacle said of the 18-year-old.

“We allege Sturdivant was willing to sacrifice himself by committing a terrorist attack, using knives and a hammer to support the murder, torture and extreme violence that ISIS represents.”

An FBI search of his home reportedly recovered hammers and knives hidden under Sturdivant’s bed, as well as notes allegedly detailing his attack plans.

“I could tell you the FBI had 24/7 surveillance on this subject, all hours of night, Christmas Day, Christmas Eve,” Barnacle said. He described the suspect’s targets as “Jews, Christians and LGBTQ individuals”.

FBI Director Kash Patel quickly promoted Sturdivant’s arrest on social media, praising his bureau and its partners for “undoubtedly saving lives”.

The arrest comes one year after a pickup truck driver intentionally rammed his vehicle down Bourbon Street, New Orleans’s famed entertainment district, in a deadly New Year’s Day attack.

Fourteen people were killed, and authorities recovered an ISIL flag in the truck.

But critics have questioned the use of undercover agents to make “terrorism-related” arrests with some defence lawyers arguing that agents have encouraged suspects to make incriminating statements or take actions they otherwise would not have.

Lawyers for the 18-year-old have yet to publicly comment.

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.

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.

Footage shows a massive hole in the vault of Sparkasse Bank in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, where thieves made off with valuables estimated to be worth between 10 and 90 million euros ($11.7 to 105.7 million), police said. Angry customers assembled outside the bank on Tuesday demanding answers.

A newfound ‘openness’

The trouble with prosecutorial independence, however, is that it has not been codified in US law.

Instead, it is a norm that has developed over more than a century, stretching back to the earliest days of the Justice Department.

While the role of the attorney general dates back to 1789, the Justice Department itself is a more recent creation. It was established in 1870, during the Reconstruction period following the US Civil War.

That period was marked by an increasing rejection of political patronage: the system of rewarding political allies with favours and jobs.

Reformers argued that, rather than having law enforcement officers scattered across various government agencies, consolidating them in one department would make them less susceptible to political influence.

That premise, however, has been tested over the subsequent decades, most notably in the early 1970s under then-President Richard Nixon.

Nixon courted scandal by appearing to wield the threat of prosecutions against his political rivals — while dropping cases that harmed his allies.

In one instance, he allegedly ordered the Justice Department to drop its antitrust case against the company International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) in exchange for financial backing at the Republican National Convention.

Key Justice Department officials were also implicated in the Watergate scandal, which involved an attempted break-in at Democratic Party headquarters.

But Sklansky, the Stanford Law professor, noted that Nixon tended to operate through back channels. He avoided any public calls to prosecute his rivals.

“He believed that, if he called for that openly, he would’ve been pilloried not just by Democrats but by Republicans,” Sklansky said. “And that was undoubtedly true at the time.”

But Sklansky believes the second Trump administration has abandoned such discretion in favour of a public display of power over the Justice Department.

“Trump’s openness about the use of the Justice Department to go after his enemies is really something that is quite new,” he said.

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.

A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its Justice Department counterpart from “sweeping” civil arrests at immigration courthouses across Northern California, teeing up an appellate challenge to one of the Trump administration’s most controversial deportation tactics.

“This circumstance presents noncitizens in removal proceedings with a Hobson’s choice between two irreparable harms,” Judge P. Casey Pitts wrote in his Christmas Eve decision.

“First, they may appear in immigration court and face likely arrest and detention,” the judge wrote. “Alternatively, noncitizens may choose not to appear and instead to forego their opportunity to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal.”

Wednesday’s decision blocks ICE and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review from lying in wait for asylum seekers and other noncitizens at routine hearings throughout the region — a move that would effectively restore pre-Trump prohibition on such arrests.

“Here, ICE and EOIR’s prior policies governing courthouse arrests and detention in holding facilities provide a standard,” the judge said.

Authorities have long curbed arrests at “sensitive locations”— such as hospitals, houses of worship and schools — putting them out of reach of most civil immigration enforcement.

The designation was first established decades ago under ICE’s predecessor agency, Immigration and Naturalization Services. ICE absorbed the prohibitions when the agency was formed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Courts were added to the list under President Obama. The policy prohibiting most courthouse arrests was suspended during the first Trump administration and reinstated by President Biden.

Internal ICE guidance from the Biden era found “[e]xecuting civil immigration enforcement actions in or near a courthouse may chill individuals’ access to courthouses and, as a result, impair the fair administration of justice.”

Nevertheless, the agency’s courthouse policy was reversed again earlier this year, leading to a surge in arrests, and a staggering drop in court appearances, court records show.

Most who do not show up are ordered removed in absentia.

Monthly removal in absentia orders more than doubled this year, to 4,177 from fewer than 1,600 in 2024, justice department data show.

More than 50,000 asylum seekers have been ordered removed after failing to appear in court hearings since January — more than were ordered removed in absentia in the previous five years combined.

“ICE cannot choose to ignore the ‘costs’ of its new policies—chilling the participation of noncitizens in their removal proceedings —and consider only the policies’ purported ‘benefits’ for immigration enforcement,” Pitts wrote in his stay order.

That ruling likely sets the San Francisco case on a collision course with other lawsuits seeking to curb ICE’s incursions into spaces previously considered off-limits. This suit was brought by a group of asylum seekers who braved the risk and were detained when they showed up to court.

One, a 24-year-old Guatemalan asylum seeker named Yulisa Alvarado Ambrocio, was spared detention only because her breastfeeding 11-month-old was with her in court, records show. Administration lawyers told the court ICE would almost certainly pick her up at her next hearing.

Such arrests appear arbitrary and capricious, and are unlikely to survive scrutiny by the courts, Judge Pitts ruled Wednesday.

“That widespread civil arrests at immigration courts could have a chilling effect on noncitizens’ attendance at removal proceedings (as common sense, the prior guidance, and the actual experience in immigration court since May 2025 make clear) and thereby undermine this central purpose is thus ‘an important aspect of the problem’ that ICE was required, but failed, to consider,” Pitts wrote.

A district judge in Manhattan ruled the opposite way on a similar case this fall, setting up a possible circuit split and even a Supreme Court challenge to courthouse arrests in 2026.

For now, the Christmas Eve decision only applies to ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, a region encompassing all of Northern and Central California, as far south as Bakersfield.

The geographic limit comes in response to the Supreme Court’s emergency decision earlier this year stripping district judges of the power to block federal policies outside narrowly-tailored circumstances.

The administration told the court it intends to appeal to the 9th Circuit, where Trump-appointed judges have swung the bench far to the right of its longtime liberal reputation.

US Justice Department says it requires weeks to process newly found Epstein-related files under transparency and court rules.

More than a million additional documents that are potentially related to late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein have been uncovered, according to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a social media post on Wednesday, the DOJ said it is reviewing the documents and will need “a few more weeks” before proceeding with a congressionally mandated release of the information.

“The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the FBI have informed the Department of Justice that they have uncovered over a million more documents potentially related to the Jeffrey Epstein case,” the DOJ said in a statement, adding that more time is needed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidante Ghislaine Maxwell.

The DOJ insisted in its statement that its lawyers are “working around the clock” to review those documents and make the redactions required under the law, passed nearly unanimously by Congress.

“Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks. The Department will continue to fully comply with federal law and President [Donald] Trump’s direction to release the files,” the DOJ said.

Full disclosure

A dozen US senators are calling on the Justice Department’s watchdog to examine the department’s failure to release all records pertaining to Epstein by Friday’s congressionally mandated deadline, saying victims “deserve full disclosure” and the “peace of mind” of an independent audit.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, a member of Trump’s Republican Party, joined 11 Democrats in signing a letter on Wednesday urging Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume to audit the Justice Department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Given the [Trump] Administration’s historic hostility to releasing the files, politicisation of the Epstein case more broadly, and failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a neutral assessment of its compliance with the statutory disclosure requirements is essential,” the senators wrote.

Full transparency, they said, “is essential in identifying members of our society who enabled and participated in Epstein’s crimes”.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie, a co-sponsor of the transparency act, posted on Wednesday on X: “DOJ did break the law by making illegal redactions and by missing the deadline.”

Despite the deadline, the Justice Department has said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information.

More batches of records were released over the weekend and on Tuesday. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

“The reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply to protect victims,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told the NBC television network’s Meet the Press programme on Sunday.

“So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents that were produced on Friday are the same individuals who apparently don’t want us to protect victims,” he argued.

A rural Texas community says nonstop noise from a bitcoin mine is destroying their lives. Residents in Hood County describe the 24/7 hum of cooling fans as “torture,” while operators defend the project as a major jobs and tax boost. Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle says AI data centres may bring even bigger battles ahead.

Four residents of Pari, a low-lying Indonesian island, filed the complaint in January 2023.

A Swiss court has agreed to hear a legal complaint against cement giant Holcim, accusing the company of failing to do enough to cut carbon emissions.

NGO Swiss Church Aid (HEKS/EPER), which is supporting the complainants, said on Monday that the court had decided to admit the legal complaint. Holcim confirmed the decision and said it plans to appeal.

The complaint was filed in January 2023 by four residents of Pari, a low-lying Indonesian island that has suffered repeated flooding as rising global temperatures drive up sea levels. The case was submitted to a court in Zug, Switzerland, where Holcim has its headquarters.

According to HEKS, this is the first time a Swiss court has admitted climate litigation brought against a big corporation.

If successful, it would also be the first case seeking to hold a Swiss company legally responsible for its contribution to global warming, the group has previously said.

The lawsuit is also among the first climate cases brought by people in the Global South directly affected by climate change and forms part of a growing push for compensation for “loss and damage”, campaigners backing the case said.

The nongovernmental organisation supporting the plaintiffs said Holcim was selected because it is one of the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitters and the biggest so-called “carbon major” based in Switzerland.

A study commissioned by HEKS and conducted by the United States-based Climate Accountability Institute found that Holcim emitted more than 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 1950 and 2021 – about 0.42 percent of total global industrial emissions over the period.

Holcim has said it is committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and is following a science-based pathway to meet that goal. The company says it has cut direct CO2 emissions from its operations by more than 50 percent since 2015.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for climate-related damage, financial contributions to flood protection measures on Pari Island, and a rapid reduction in Holcim’s carbon emissions.

Cement production accounts for about 7 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the Global Cement and Concrete Association.

THE slashing deaths of Hollywood star Rob Reiner and his wife have sparked a raft of questions, many of which stem from their alleged killer son, Nick.

Here is a look at five mysteries that leave glaring holes in the murder investigation, from hazy information about Nick’s mental health to debates on his unconfirmed motivation.

Nick, 32, is accused of murdering his parents, filmmaker Rob, 78, and his wife Michele, 68, after a chaotic weekend that spiraled from a celebrity bash to a late-night arrest near the University of Southern California.

The couple was found dead at their Brentwood home on Sunday with their throats slashed.

Nick was arrested later that night and is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, meaning he could face the death penalty if convicted.

However, his fate is still hanging in the balance, as his arrest is complicated by missing hours, unclear motives, and unanswered questions about what he did while his parents lay dead.

READ MORE ON ENTERTAINMENT

CALL FOR HELP

New Rob Reiner scene details revealed by first cops to arrive at his home

TROUBLING HISTORY

Nick Reiner was ‘violent’ with parents at least once before murders

Here is what has been revealed about the case and what remains to be revealed.

WHAT HAPPENED AT CONAN O’BRIEN’S PARTY?

On Saturday night, Rob, Michele, and Nick were all said to have attended a star-studded holiday party hosted by comedian Conan O’Brien.

And according to several insiders, the night reportedly went sideways for the trio.

Guests present at the party claimed that Nick behaved erratically the entire night

According to the Wall Street Journal, there was one awkward moment where Nick interrupted Saturday Night Live alum Bill Hader during a private conversation and was told to butt out.

Nick was said to have asked Hader odd questions like ” What’s your name? What’s your last name? Are you famous?”

One witness told the Daily Mail, “Nick just stood there and stared before storming off.”

Tensions escalated when multiple attendees saw Rob, Michele, and Nick locked in a heated argument.

At one point, a guest suggested calling the police, Daily Mail reported.

“They got into an argument, the father and son. It got so bad and loud someone wanted to call the police to report it,” an insider told the outlet.

Timeline of Rob and Michele Reiner’s death

Rob Reiner and his wife of Michele Singer Reiner were found dead in their Los Angeles home on December 14, 2025.

Timeline:

• December 13, 2025: Reiner and his wife Michele attended a holiday party on the evening of December 13 with their son, Nick.
• Sources conveyed to The U.S. Sun that the couple and their son were engaged in a heated public argument while at the event.
• December 14, 2025: Reiner and Michele were found dead in their Brentwood home in Los Angeles at around 3:30 pm PST.
• The couple’s daughter, Romy, reportedly discovered her parents’ bodies.
• Online police records show Reiner and Michele’s 32-year-old son, Nick, was arrested at 9:15 pm PST on December 14.
• December 15, 2025: Authorities in Los Angeles announce that Nick Reiner was arrested and charged with murder.
• Nick was booked into a Los Angeles jail at 5:04 am and was being held on $4 million bail, which was later revoked.
• December 16, 2025: Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman formally charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder.
• Hochman said his office would consider the death penalty in Nick’s case.
• Nick’s scheduled court appearance on December 16 was postponed due to what his attorney said was a procedural issue.

But O’Brien reportedly intervened before anyone rang 911, the insider claimed.

“But Conan stepped in and said, ‘it’s my house, my party, I’m not calling the police.’ He talked them out of calling the police.”

“When the s**t was hitting the fan, somebody said we need to call the police. The conversation was about getting this kid put into a mental-health hold,” the source told the Mail.

Nick eventually stormed off the party.

Outlets have also reported that Rob confided to friends that he is scared of Nick.

“I’m petrified of him,” Rob told his friends.

“I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I’m afraid of my own son. I think my own son can hurt me.”

WAS NICK HIGH ON DRUGS?

No official details have been released saying Nick was on drugs or drunk at the time of the alleged killings.

But questions are swirling because he has a documented history of substance abuse, and the hours after the party, and after he is believed to have fled the family home, are still largely unaccounted for.

Nick had a substance abuse problem for years, his parents also tried to help him recover from it.

WAS NICK ON MEDS FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA?

According to a TMZ report, Nick was receiving care from a Los Angeles-based rehab facility that focuses on mental illness and substance abuse, and costs $70,000 a month.

Nick had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and a report claims his behavior became increasingly “alarming” as doctors worked to fine-tune his treatment.

Things got worse three to four weeks before the murders after doctors changed his medication, leaving him even more unstable.

“Nick was out of his head,” a source told TMZ, with the report also alleging his substance abuse made his condition worse.

COULD HE GET OFF ON MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS?

Nick’s defense could try to lean on mental health in court, but that doesn’t mean he will walk free.

One avenue his attorney, Alan Jackson, could explore is having him declare mentally unfit for trial, which would pause the proceedings while he is evaluated and treated.

That’s different from an insanity defense, which argues he wasn’t legally responsible at the time of the alleged killings.

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Daniel Rubin told Fox News the defense strategy will depend on “the weight and admissibility” of evidence, witness testimony, the events before the deaths, “the defendant’s mental health issues,” and any mitigating factors.

Rubin said if Reiner is found mentally incompetent, a judge can order a formal competency assessment by specialists.

“If he is found ‘incompetent,’ he will need to be medicated or treated to the point where he will be able to assist in his own defense and understand the proceedings,” Rubin added.

This process could take several weeks to several months.

If a judge finds him unfit, the case typically goes on ice while doctors work to restore competency, and it can restart if he stabilizes.

Even if he’s never restored, that doesn’t mean he goes home; he could still be held in a secure hospital setting rather than a prison.

And if he’s found fit and later convicted, prison is still very much on the table.

WILL HE GET HIS PARENTS’ FORTUNE?

If Nick already has cash or there is a trust that allows discretionary payouts, it’s possible funds could be used toward his legal bills while the criminal case is pending – because he’s presumed innocent and the inheritance question isn’t “final” yet. 

Some reports say that, until there’s a conviction or a civil finding, he isn’t automatically treated as disqualified in every setting. 

But any move to use estate or trust cash could trigger an immediate probate war, with other relatives or beneficiaries pushing to freeze payouts while the murder case is pending.

If Nick is convicted, California’s so-called “slayer statute” would likely kick in, a law that blocks someone from inheriting from a person they feloniously and intentionally killed.

In that scenario, he’d be treated as if he died before his parents for inheritance purposes, meaning he wouldn’t collect from their estate.

If he’s barred, the money would typically flow to other heirs or whoever is next in line under the will or trust.

Rob and Michele’s combined estate has been estimated at around $200 million, making the financial stakes enormous as the case heads toward court.

The FTC had accused the grocery delivery giant of charging fees to consumers after promising ‘free delivery’.

Instacart has agreed to pay $60m in refunds to settle allegations brought by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that the online grocery delivery platform deceived consumers about its membership programme and free delivery offers.

According to court documents filed in San Francisco on Thursday, Instacart’s offer of “free delivery” for first orders was illusory because shoppers were charged other fees, the FTC alleged.

The agency also accused Instacart of failing to adequately notify shoppers that their free trials of its Instacart+ subscription service would convert to paid memberships and of misleading consumers about its refund policy.

“The FTC is focused on monitoring online delivery services to ensure that competitors are transparently competing on price and delivery terms,” said Christopher Mufarrige, who leads the FTC’s consumer protection work.

An Instacart spokesperson said the company flatly denies any allegations of wrongdoing, but that the settlement allows the company to focus on shoppers and retailers.

“We provide straightforward marketing, transparent pricing and fees, clear terms, easy cancellation, and generous refund policies — all in full compliance with the law and exceeding industry norms,” the spokesperson said.

The shopping platform is currently under scrutiny after a recent study by nonprofit groups found that individual shoppers simultaneously received different prices for the same items at the same stores.

The FTC is investigating the company and has demanded information about Instacart’s Eversight pricing tool, the news agency Reuters reported on Wednesday.

Instacart has said that retailers are responsible for setting prices, and that pricing tests run through Eversight are random and not based on user data.

Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, an economic think tank, criticised the grocery platform for using artificial intelligence (AI) to tweak its prices.

“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher,” Owens said in written remarks provided to Al Jazeera.

She also called on the administration of US President Donald Trump to take action to prevent such price manipulation from continuing into the future.

“While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers,” Owens said. “Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”

On Wall Street, Instacart’s stock is taking a hit on the heels of the settlement, finishing out the day down 1.5 percent.

Maxwell, a former British socialite and Epstein accomplice, says her conviction for trafficking a ‘miscarriage of justice’.

Ghislaine Maxwell, former girlfriend and accomplice of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has asked a federal judge in the United States to set aside her sex trafficking conviction and quash her 20-year prison sentence.

Maxwell made the long-shot legal bid in a Manhattan court on Wednesday, saying “substantial new evidence” had emerged proving that constitutional violations spoiled her trial in 2021 for recruiting underage girls for wealthy financier Epstein, who died in 2019.

In the lengthy filing, Maxwell, 63, argues that “newly discovered evidence” proves that she “did not receive a fair trial by independent jurors coming to Court with an open mind”.

“If the jury had heard of the new evidence of the collusion between the plaintiff’s lawyers and the Government to conceal evidence and the prosecutorial misconduct they would not have convicted,” Maxwell wrote.

She said the cumulative effect of the constitutional violations resulted in a “complete miscarriage of justice”.

Maxwell submitted the filing herself, not in the name of a lawyer.

Proceedings of the type brought by Maxwell are routinely denied by judges and are often the last-ditch option available to offenders to have their convictions overturned, the AFP news agency reports.

Maxwell’s filing also comes just days before records in her legal case are scheduled to be released publicly as a result of US President Donald Trump’s signing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The law, which Trump signed after months of public and political pressure on his administration, requires the Department of Justice to provide the public with Epstein-related records by December 19.

The circumstances of Epstein’s death and his influential social circle, which spanned the highest reaches of business and politics in the US, have also fuelled conspiracy theories about possible cover-ups and unnamed accomplices

Critics also continue to press President Trump to address his own once-close relationship with Epstein.

The Justice Department has said it plans to release 18 categories of investigative materials gathered in the massive sex trafficking probe, including search warrants, financial records, notes from interviews with victims, and data from electronic devices.

Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on sex trafficking charges but was found dead a month later in his cell at a New York federal jail, and his death was ruled a suicide.

Maxwell, once a well-known British socialite, was arrested a year later and convicted of sex trafficking in December 2021.

In July, she was interviewed by the Justice Department’s second-in-command and soon afterwards moved from a federal prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas.

Maxwell’s transfer from the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Tallahassee – a low-security prison in Florida – to the minimum-security Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, was carried out without explanation at the time.