Courts

RAPIST Russell Brand was banned from BBC’s Los Angeles office in 2019 after allegedly flashing a woman in the toilets and exposing himself to her a decade earlier.

The disgraced comedian, 51, allegedly followed his victim – known by the pseudonym of “Olivia” – into the loos and exposed his penis in June 2008, minutes before recording Radio 2’s The Russell Brand Show.

At the time, his co-host Matt Morgan said on air that Brand had “showed his willy to a lady” 25 minutes earlier, but the incident was not investigated by the Beeb.

Olivia, who was not employed by the BBC but worked for another company in the same building, said she felt she couldn’t report the incident in 2008 because she feared repercussions.

She told the The Sunday Times: “I’d like to think my employer would have backed me, but I was worried that if I had gone up against him [Brand] and lost, I would have been responsible for any costs.

“It was a very different time and culture. There were also elements of embarrassment that this creep did this to me. It was shame.”

Read More on Russell Brand

VILE ‘GAME’

Russell Brand ‘groped fellow pupils’ in ‘genital grabbing’ game while at school

TELLING SIGN

Moment Brand flashes sinister message to Katy Perry on Oscars red carpet

However, the incident became a popular joke among BBC’s LA staff, with the corporation admitting last year that it was “often joked about”.

The revelations come as The Sun revealed that Brand secretly moved nearly £9million from one of his firms, which could stop money going to his victims.

Brand began diluting his vast wealth prior to standing trial for rape, despite always protesting his innocence, a Sun probe has revealed.

He shifted £8.7million out of his TV and stand-up company last year.

Legal experts expect the former comedian and actor will be subject to significant financial claims from victims on both sides of the Atlantic after he was last week found guilty of one rape and three sexual assaults.

He also resigned as a director of one firm in 2023, just weeks after he was publicly accused of being a sexual predator.

It comes as the religious influencer faces a significant jail term when he is sentenced today, November 9, at London’s Southwark crown court.

It has also emerged that Brand claimed he groped other students as part of a sick “genital grabbing” game while he was at school.

In his first memoir My Booky Wook, Brand, now 51, says he played a grubby game called “genital grabbing”, where he would grope other students over their clothes.

He later wrote of his classmates: “No one was safe from me… every female was a potential target.”

When he was in his 20s, this morphed into what was called the “knobstacle course” – his challenge of trying to charm women into going to bed with him.

It  has been claimed Brand molested a female friend at a posh hotel — before paying for her to go through rehab.

The woman says he followed her to the toilets before pushing her into the disabled cubicle and sexually assaulting her.

The newly resurfaced material comes after the fiend was found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault following a trial at Southwark Crown Court earlier this week.

He was acquitted of three charges.

After he was convicted, it emerged that he is being investigated over two new rape claims.

RUSSELL Brand’s family are said to be deeply concerned for his wife and fear the disgraced comedian “totally brainwashed” her into believing he is innocent.

Besotted 39-year-old Laura Gallacher is said to remain fiercely loyal to her sicko husband – despite him being convicted of rape and three sexual assaults.

Relatives worry that Laura has been so swayed by rapist Brand that she refuses to accept the evidence against him, the Mail reports.

It comes after The Sun revealed that Laura – who has stood by her hubby throughout the trial – is in two minds about attending the sentencing hearing tomorrow.

Sources close to her family claim she has been left convinced that the 51-year-old is innocent, and is even determined to support an appeal against his convictions.

One family friend told the Mail: “Russell gets what Russell wants. He has that charm and swagger, and Laura is besotted with him.

DARK PAST

Russell Brand’s dad ‘hired him prostitutes as a child’ sparking sick obsession

CHILLING TIMELINE

Brand ‘met with Katy Perry right after Channel 4 worker sexual assault’

“She goes along with what he wants, it’s like he has totally brainwashed her.”

They added that his absence could give Laura the opportunity to step away from his influence and reassess their relationship.

Brand faces a “lengthy” prison sentence after being found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault following a trial at Southwark Crown Court.

The offences involved four women and took place between 2005 and 2009.

He was also acquitted of two further counts of rape and one count of attempted indecent assault.

But the split verdict is understood to have strengthened Laura’s belief that her husband was wrongly accused.

A friend told the Mail she believes the jury’s decision to clear him of three charges proves the other allegations were also untrue.

Laura had attended court throughout the trial, sitting in the public gallery as six women gave evidence about their experiences.

She was regularly seen arriving alongside Brand, holding his hand as they entered and left the building.

The mother-of-three also took notes as the women described the allegations against her husband.

Those close to her reportedly noticed what they believed was growing anger as she listened to the evidence, which they claim she dismissed as lies.

In videos shared on the couple’s online show, Sunday Service With The Brands, Laura also spoke about the emotional strain of attending court.

During one recording, she described putting on her “armour” before entering the building.

She said she would begin to feel nervous as soon as she approached the street where the court was situated.

Brand, who has reinvented himself as a born-again Christian, regularly features alongside Laura in the online broadcasts, which include Bible readings, prayers and discussions about family life.

The couple have been married for nine years and share three children- two girls aged nine and seven, and a three-year-old son.

Laura, the daughter of former European Ryder Cup captain Bernard Gallacher, is said to have found the guilty verdict particularly difficult to accept.

Brand was remanded into custody at HMP Wandsworth after the verdict, leaving his wife to leave court without him.

Sources claim she was shocked and extremely upset by his imprisonment and believes he has been badly treated.

Laura is understood to have taken comfort from the three charges on which he was acquitted.

The family are now said to be rallying around Laura and the children as they face an uncertain future.

Her older sister, former Sky Sports presenter Kirsty Gallacher, is among those supporting her.

Bernard and his wife Lesley are also said to have been left heartbroken by the scandal.

The family are particularly concerned about what comes next, with cops continuing to investigate further allegations against Brand.

The comedian faces separate rape allegations involving two more women, including a girl who was 16 at the time.

The Metropolitan Police investigation could lead to further charges and another trial.

Despite his convictions, Laura is reportedly determined to stand by her husband and support him through any future legal proceedings.

The couple had spent much of their time living in Florida before Brand’s trial, but Laura is now expected to remain in the UK while he serves his sentence.

Relatives are said to hope she will spend more time closer to them in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire.

One family friend told the Mail: “You can’t help thinking life would have been way less painful for Laura if they had never met.”

ANDREW Sachs’ granddaughter has branded Russell Brand a “a seriously unwell sex addict” after the fiend was found guilty of rape and sexual assault.

Brand and Jonathan Ross left vulgar voicemails on the Fawlty Towers legend’s phone after sleeping with his granddaughter Georgina Baillie, who was 21 at the time.

The jibes were made during a series of prank calls broadcast on BBC Radio 2 in 2008.

In a series of three voicemails left on Sachs’ phone, Brand and Ross made repeated graphic claims about Brand’s sex life with Georgina.

Later in the show, Ross said if people were offended by the prank calls they were “crazy”.

The scandal, which became known as Sachsgate, saw Brand resign from the BBC and Ross suspended from his TV show for three months.

BEHIND BARS

‘Shaken’ rapist Russell Brand in ‘real danger’ in ‘dirty’ Wandsworth prison

‘WORLD’S COLLAPSED’

As Brand’s wife stands by disgraced star, pals reveal her next moves

On Thursday, Brand was found guilty of rape and sex attacks on a string of victims as part of a depraved campaign to sleep with 5,000 women.

Georgina, now 41, told the Daily Mail it’s now “obvious” to her that Brand is a sex addict, adding “that boy is seriously unwell”.

She said she’s “disappointed” with Brand and wants him to “own up and make the amends” after being found guilty.

“I want those victims to get some help. I really do. It’s possible to recover from this, it’s hard having experienced sexual assault myself- though not at the hands of Russell,” she continued.

The 41-year-old provided a statement to be used in mitigation for Brand’s trial, but it was never used.

Speaking about their fling, she said: “He was seeing loads of women, and I knew that. I was never in any doubt whatsoever that I was one of many but I didn’t really care at the time. He had his drug of choice on tap all day. I was just a piece of that, I was only one line out of many.”

Georgina said she was “completely dazzled by celebrity” when she first met Brand, now 51.

Their consensual fling came at a time when she was in the throes of addiction. He was 10 years older than her at the time.

Both Brand and Ross apologised for their actions later in 2008. The corporation was fined £150,000 by the regulator Ofcom over the lewd jokes.

Georgina said previously: “I was really lost back then. After Sachsgate, Russell made millions of pounds doing a stand-up routine about it and that was very hard and painful for me – I was the butt of the joke, I was young and didn’t know how to process it and I turned to drink and drugs.”

“It was a very unnerving time. Not only had my grandparents heard what I had been up to sexually, which anybody would recoil at, but then it was all the ‘boys will be boys’ attitude.

Brand went on to apologise to Georgina in person 11 years after the stunt, and paid for her rehab.

But she lost out on eight years with her granddad as the pair stopped speaking.

Former burlesque performer Georgina made up with her grandfather before he died aged 86 in November 2016.

In a 2015 interview, Georgina said her grandparents had a lot to forgive her for.

She told the Daily Mirror: “I love and miss them so much. I admit I was a nightmare in my early 20s. I’ve tried to repair my relationship with my grandparents. They were understandably angry.”

A BBC spokesman said at the time: “Russell Brand worked for a number of different organisations, of which the BBC was one. As is well known, Russell Brand left the BBC after a serious editorial breach in 2008 – as did the then-controller of Radio 2. 

“The circumstances of the breach were reviewed in detail at the time.

“We hope that demonstrates that the BBC takes issues seriously and is prepared to act. 

“Indeed, the BBC has, over successive years, evolved its approach to how it manages talent and how it deals with complaints or issues raised.

“We have clear expectations around conduct at work, these are set out in employment contracts, the BBC Values, the BBC Code of Conduct and the Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy.

“We will always listen to people if they come forward with any concerns, on any issue related to any individual working at the BBC, past or present.”

Brand preyed on women between 1999 and 2009 and used his growing fame – from presenting Big Brother’s Big Mouth and Hollywood movies – to target the victims in a range of locations.

On Thursday,  a jury found Brand guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault after deliberating for eight and a half hours.

The 51-year-old is facing years in jail after the court heard he became a “ruthless, calculated and manipulative” predator as he sought to satisfy his “voracious” sexual appetite.

Brand has been accused of raping two more women and could now face further criminal charges, it was revealed after the verdicts.

The court heard that one of the complaints comes from a woman who dated Brand when he was 30 years old and another was a 16-year-old schoolgirl.

Brand, who told his wife Laura Gallacher “I love you” after entering the dock, displayed no emotion as the jury delivered its verdicts, at the end of a trial that lasted nearly four weeks.

He was remanded into custody and will be sentenced on Monday. The judge told Brand he should expect a “significant custodial term”.

Najib transitions to house arrest after his party UMNO raises $12m fine via crowdfunding.

Malaysia’s jailed former Prime Minister Najib Razak has been allowed to transfer to house arrest after his party paid a $12m fine following a royal pardon.

Najib’s lawyer, Farhan Shafee, told reporters on Friday that he has been given the order and will be “delivering that order to the Kajang prison right now”.

Najib, who denies any wrongdoing, has been held in jail since 2022, following his conviction for corruption and embezzlement of billions of dollars connected to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a state investment fund he co-founded while in power from 2009-2018.

His house arrest could start on Friday if everything goes to plan, Shafee said.

The order comes after Malaysia’s King Sultan Ibrahim agreed in September to pardon Najib, allowing him to serve the rest of his sentence at home.

Najib’s party, the United Malays National Organisation, has reportedly used crowdfunding to cover Najib’s 50 million ringgit ($12m) fine, as his bank accounts have been frozen.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Kuala Lumpur, said this decision could cause a political stir in Malaysia.

“This has an awful lot of political spinoff, potentially impacting the political scene here in Malaysia,” he said. “But also there’s a lot of questions being asked about how the current politics have impacted this pardon.”

He said Anwar Ibrahim, the prime minister of Malaysia, has publicly raised concerns about the pardon within his capacity as the “anticorruption figurehead” in the country. But there has been speculation that he may have, behind the scenes, helped the pardon go through due to pressure from Najib’s party.

Investigators say about $4.5bn was stolen from the 1MDB state fund and more than $1bn of it was linked to Najib.

Najib has said he was solely blamed for a highly complicated global fraud scheme and has denied any wrongdoing.

Separately, he was also convicted in a major 1MBD trial in Malaysia, where he was sentenced to 15 years in prison and a $2.5bn fine for money laundering and the abuse of power.

He has appealed the case and his lawyers requested that the jail term and fines be halted, citing poor health and his inability to pay the fine.

A judge rejected his request in September, saying “the gravity of the offence ⁠is a more important public interest consideration.” Reporting from Kuala Lumpur, Al Jazeera’s McBride said Razak is due to return to jail to serve out this sentence as soon as his house arrest ends in 2028, but it is unclear at this stage if this will happen.

RUSSELL Brand has been found guilty of sex attacks on a string of victims as part of a depraved campaign to sleep with 5,000 women.

The 51-year-old became a “ruthless, calculated and manipulative” predator as he sought to satisfy his “voracious” sexual appetite.

Brand preyed on women between 1999 and 2009 and used his growing fame – from presenting Big Brother’s Big Mouth and Hollywood movies – to target the victims in a range of locations.

The three counts he was found guilty of today include a sexual assault at a Soho bar, where Brand was accused of touching a woman’s breasts while they were talking about Big Brother in 2004.

Brand has also been found guilty of sexual assault at a radio station in a “violent, sloppy and frenzied” attack in 2005.

He raped a woman at his Hampstead townhouse in 2009, telling her to “clean up after herself” afterwards, it was found.

The jury also found him guilty of sexually assaulting a Channel 4 worker in 2009, who was forced to give him a massage.

He was found not guilty on three other counts – attempted indecent assault and two counts of rape.

The trial at Southwark Crown Court was told the offences took place when Brand’s “public profile was taking off”.

Instantly recognisable by his trademark skinny jeans, back-combed hair and heavy eye make up, Brand became known for falling out of nightclubs with female admirers draped from his arm.

Some of his victims were lulled into a false sense of security by Brand and believed the comedian was gay as part of his “strategy” to dupe women.

Once they were behind closed doors, the fiend’s mask would drop and he’d become a “monster” hell-bent on fulfilling his rapacious quest to bed 5,000 women.

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC said the star was “childlike in his expectation that his every desire should be met” and only cared about his “birth right to orgasm”.

She told jurors all the women were “wholly unconnected” but each “described a pattern that resonates with who Brand was in the period 1999 to 2009”.

Ms Karmy-Jones added: “Six women who have nothing to gain, who have not sought the limelight, who have not looked out for some form of publicity, who have not taken part in a documentary, not made claims for compensation.

“There is no benefit to them, apart from perhaps some closure by coming before you and telling you their accounts of what happened to them so long ago.”

One woman who Brand raped at his home told how the comedian made her feel like a “piece of meat”.

She told she had met the celeb after seeing his show at the Hammersmith Apollo in London with a friend in 2009.

He told her his age range was from “16 to death” before she was invited to a backstage bar where they kissed and had a threesome, it was said.

The woman said she went to his home the next day where Brand told her: “Your hair smells funny”.

He then made her take a shower and wash her hair while he watched through a glass shower cubicle.

Once in the bedroom, the woman said they had consensual sex after he told her: “This is the best decision you’ve ever made, well done”.

She told the court Brand raped her and looked “absolutely f***ing horrified” – making her think he would apologise.

But the woman added: “But actually what he said was ‘you need to clear up the mess that you’ve made’.”

Another woman was in her 20s working at a radio station in the mid-2000s when Brand sexually assaulted her.

She told the court Brand was a “perfect stranger” to her at the time and said his assault was “violent”, “sloppy” and “frenzied”.

The woman also said she had locked eyes” with one of his entourage and was “pleading with her” to stop what was happening.

One victim said Brand “lunged” at her and grabbed her breasts when they were talking about Big Brother in a Soho bar in July 2004.

At the time, he had a “big, weird grin” on his face and “quite strongly” pulled her into the toilet where he orally raped her, she told cops.

When she protested, Brand told her: “Oh come on don’t be a spoil sport, you want to.”

The sixth woman worked for Channel 4 when she met Brand while he was filming a project.

She said she was informed Brand was “unhappy” and the situation would not improve unless she gave him a massage.

The woman said he walked up to a chair she was sitting on and placed his head directly into her groin area.

During his evidence, Brand wore a crucifix and wrung his hands together as he claimed his “promiscuous” past had been twisted into the allegations made against him.

He had admitted having an “obsession” with sex when he was younger but claimed consent is “non-negotiable” and “more important than sex itself”.

Brand added: “I do recognise I have been a very determined and focused man and with regard to the latter, with women, of course, which is the subject of my trial.

“I’ve been persuasive, seductive, begging and flirting, and dedicated a lot of my life to what seems now beyond-reckless philandering and idiocy.”

He admitted it had been “wrong” of him to use his fame for sex but denied he had ever forced himself on a woman.

Brand also tried to paint himself as someone who had reformed but whose life had been “consumed” by the allegations.

He moaned about how he had lost friends and said he was unable to persuade anyone to give evidence on his behalf.

But Brand had one supporter in the public gallery – his wife Laura Gallacher – sister of sports presenter Kirsty – who took to the stand herself after weeks of walking into the court hand-in-hand with Brand each day.

The mum gushed over the star – calling him an “amazingly attentive husband” and a “kind and a wonderful father”.

She told jurors “I love him very much” and claimed they always have sex “at my pace”.

Discussing when they began dating in 2007, Laura added: “I was not experienced, I had only had one partner before Russell.

“I felt entirely cared for and looked after by Russell.”

She told jurors Brand “respected my view” if she said she did not want to do something.

Laura said she was 19 when she met Brand, who was 31 at the time, at Edinburgh Festival.

The mum, who shares three children with the comic, revealed they broke up in summer 2007 when she became “very aware” of Brand’s promiscuity.

She added: “When I met him I was aware that he liked women, and I was aware towards the latter half of that year that he was engaging with other women.

“I wasn’t interested in having a relationship with him if he was sleeping with other people.

“I was invested, we both had told each other we loved each other but it was clear it was difficult for him to be monogamous.”

She said they got back together again as a couple in 2015 and married in 2017.

Brand, who displayed little emotion during the trial, was seen in the dock beaming as his wife spoke on his behalf.

He even laughed when she told the court: “We do have many friends and there are colleagues, and we are grateful for those people.”

In recent years, Brand had re-invented himself into a born-again Christian influencer – an image he bolstered in court by clutching a bible each day.

But his new life in the US came crumbling down when the allegations came to light in a Channel 4 Dispatches and he was thrust back into the public eye.

Brand is now facing a lengthy prison term when he is sentenced.

Wong, in prison since 2020, was found guilty of colluding with foreign entities in violation of the city’s national security law.

Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who has been in prison since 2020, has been jailed for an additional 10 years.

Hong Kong’s High Court found Wong guilty of colluding with foreign entities in violation of the city’s national security law on Thursday.

The sentence comes just two months before he was expected to be released in January 2027.

“The punishment must fit the gravity of ⁠the crime,” High Court Judge William Tam told a packed courtroom while delivering the sentence.

“It is also necessary for the court to express the community’s abhorrence of the defendant’s scheme and acts with others to collude with foreign forces or external elements to endanger national security.”

Wong, now 30, was accused of conspiring with self-exiled activist Nathan Law and others to ask foreign countries, bodies or individuals outside China to impose sanctions or blockades, or engage in other hostile activities against the government.

He pleaded guilty to the charge in September. Tam said he considered a 13-year prison sentence as a starting point but reduced it to 10 because of Wong’s guilty plea and mitigation.

Wong was once the face of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and has been in jail since 2020. He was imprisoned over his role in protests held a year earlier.

The demonstrations were prompted by plans to allow extradition to mainland China but soon evolved into a wider pro-democracy movement. Wong became a prominent representative of the movement, regularly appearing on news channels. He later pleaded guilty to inciting and organising an unauthorised antigovernment assembly.

‘Endless political persecution’

Governments and rights groups criticised the court’s decision on Thursday.

The United States consulate in Hong Kong said that it “strongly condemns” the additional sentence handed to Wong, and called for his “immediate release”.

“Wong has been unjustly imprisoned since December 2020, demonstrating that Beijing will go to extraordinary lengths to silence those who advocate for fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong,” a consulate spokesperson said in a statement to the AFP news agency.

After his sentencing, Taiwan also criticised the “endless political persecution” of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists.

Beijing and the Hong Kong government use “authoritarian tools” to “fabricate charges … engage in endless political persecution, and suppress the people’s legitimate rights to pursue freedom, democracy, and human rights,” Taiwan’s top China policy body said.

Human Rights Watch denounced the latest charge against Wong. “The harsh sentence on baseless charges against Joshua Wong is cruel and unjust. Young people promoting social change are an asset for any vibrant society, but the Hong Kong government puts them behind bars,” said Elaine Pearson, the group’s Asia director.

Amnesty International also criticised Wong’s additional sentence, saying it was “another grim reminder of how Hong Kong’s National Security Law has become a tool to punish dissent”.

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

A dispute over the politicisation of Poland’s constitutional court is deepening, with no side appearing to back down.

The Polish president has held crisis talks with political leaders as a dispute over the independence of the country’s top constitutional court deepens.

Representatives of nationalist, far-right, and some governing coalition parties attended President Karol Nawrocki’s talks at the presidential palace on Saturday, while Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s governing centrist party, Civic Coalition, stayed away.

Nawrocki said in a statement that he convened the “urgent” consultations “due to the threat to Poland’s internal security” presented by the sudden suspension on Friday of the Constitutional Tribunal’s chief judge, Bogdan Swieczkowski.

No breakthrough had emerged by Saturday afternoon.

Meanwhile, in a Saturday evening speech addressing the ongoing crisis, Tusk accused conservative nationalist opposition leaders of wanting to “destroy democracy and rule of law”.

“Let’s call things by their name,” he said. “For years in Poland there exist organisations and politicians who wish to destroy democracy and rule of law.”

Followers of the opposition right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) gathered outside the court on Saturday, extending protests that have been running for weeks in support of PiS-friendly judges.

Constitutional crisis

The Constitutional Tribunal is Poland’s top court for deciding constitutional matters. It has been at the centre of a years-long political saga related to the politicisation of Polish courts, which Tusk says began under the right-wing PiS government.

Swieczkowski, whom the PiS appointed during its 2015-2023 government, was accused of using his powers as head of the court to block parliament from electing new judges.

Tusk argued that the court’s judges were not politically neutral and that Swieczkowski’s removal was a “painful” but necessary decision to restore the rule of law in Poland after years of erosion under PiS rule.

The court’s official X account on Friday described the government’s move as a “coup d’etat”.

Nawrocki, himself a right-wing figure, has also blocked nominations to the court under his administration.

A key complaint brought by Tusk and his pro-European party was that the court’s PiS-aligned judges frequently ruled in favour of Polish legislation over EU law.

The European Commission on Saturday urged Nawrocki to accept the nomination of new judges at the centre of the country’s constitutional crisis, the AFP news agency reported.

US Ambassador to Poland Tom Rose called for calm on all sides.

“The last thing Poland needs is a confrontation that spirals into something far worse,” Rose wrote in a post on X.

The District of Columbia (DC) and the state of Virginia have filed a joint lawsuit to halt the construction of a large triumphal arch sought by United States President Donald Trump.

Filed on Saturday, the lawsuit denounces the project as “flagrantly unlawful” and “legally indefensible”.

It calls on the federal court system to bar construction before it starts.

Otherwise, the lawsuit warns, Trump could claim that pausing construction already under way would pose a national security risk, as he has done with other controversial projects in the past.

“This is not the first time that Defendants have rushed to dramatically remake the District too quickly for courts to intervene,” the lawsuit reads. “This Court should not allow this effort to escape judicial scrutiny.”

Saturday’s complaint brings the total number of lawsuits against the arch to three.

Trump has championed the prospect of building a triumphal arch, similar to the Arc de Triomphe built in Paris during Napoleonic times.

Trump’s arch, however, is designed to stand 30 metres (100 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. It would tower from the Memorial Circle in Washington, DC, at 76 metres (250ft).

That colossal scale has prompted outrage, particularly from veterans’ groups who fear the arch would block views of Arlington National Cemetery, a hallowed military grave site.

White House officials maintain that ground could be broken as early as next week, on or around November 5.

On Friday, the administration unveiled a 106-page proposal for the arch to be a 12-storey megastructure, featuring a winged bronze statue of Lady Liberty lifting an eternal flame.

The arch would include two mezzanines and an observation deck with panoramic east-west views, as well as programme spaces, offices and a “fire command centre”.

Trump has previously said the arch would double as a military hub with snipers and drone capabilities.

Construction on the arch would also result in significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic to nearby roads.

In Saturday’s lawsuit, Attorneys General Brian Schwalb of Washington, DC, and Jay Jones of Virginia pointed to the project’s disruptive footprint as a major concern.

“As soon as defendants break ground on this project, they will inflict irreparable harm on both the District and Virginia,” the lawsuit said.

It warns that the anticipated three-year construction project will stymie commuter traffic, slow down emergency vehicles and generate significant pollution, including “stormwater runoff into the Potomac”.

The lawsuit calls on the court to force the Trump administration to get congressional authorisation before any construction can begin.

The new legal challenge comes on the heels of an October 8 filing by Arlington County, which was the first governmental body to mount a legal action against Trump’s planned monument.

In that lawsuit, the county’s governing board argued that the project would cause “significant harm” to its residents and likely require changes to nearby flight paths.

The first complaint came in February, when a group of Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian launched an effort to stop the arch.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing that case, and she is weighing whether to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily freeze any construction plans while the court hears arguments.

At a hearing on Friday, Chutkan deferred an immediate ruling but signalled that she would be issuing a decision expeditiously.

She previously ordered the administration to give the court 48 hours’ notice before undertaking any activities related to the construction of the arch.

The monument has already received early approval from the US Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all tapped by Trump.

For the second time in less than a week, a United States appeals court has rejected a petition from the administration of President Donald Trump to set aside 20,000 ballots in California over concerns about non-citizen voting.

The decision came down on Friday, with less than four days until the November 3 midterm elections.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s request would violate the US Constitution and risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

“The consequence of the United States’s request is not merely ballot segregation, but ultimately both the cancellation of the ballot and the removal of voters from the voting rolls,” the majority wrote in its ruling.

Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez – appointed by Trump and his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, respectively – formed the majority.

A third judge, Trump appointee Patrick Bumatay, issued a dissent, saying the administration’s petition was a “reasonable request”.

The Trump administration has claimed that nearly 20,000 “likely non-citizens” received mail-in ballots to vote in California’s midterm elections on November 3. It sued the state on October 15 to prevent those ballots from being counted.

But the accuracy of the Trump administration’s list has been called into doubt, as have its claims of widespread non-citizen voting.

Election fraud in the US is extremely rare. So is non-citizen voting, despite Trump’s assertion earlier this year that as many as 278,000 foreign nationals across the country were registered to vote.

Like California, states such as Nevada and Washington have also received lists of alleged non-citizen voters, but officials there have found the documents largely inaccurate.

In Nevada, for instance, state authorities issued a statement in September saying the Trump administration had erroneously identified citizens as non-citizens on its list. Not a single name was correct, according to the statement.

California, a Democratic stronghold, will elect 52 members of the House of Representatives, one of Congress’s two chambers, on November 3.

The state has long been Trump’s target for criticism, with the president accusing its Democratic leadership of “cheating” in elections.

But California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have countered that the Trump administration is seeking to meddle in the state’s elections to sow voter distrust and undermine the results.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters,” Newsom said in a news release after the October 15 lawsuit.

Non-citizen voting in federal elections is against the law in all 50 US states, including California.

The Constitution’s Elections Clause also grants states exclusive authority to administer elections, though it does allow for Congress to pass regulations concerning voting procedures.

The Trump administration initially sent California its list of 20,000 “likely non-citizens” on October 12, barely three weeks before the midterm election.

California officials refused the administration’s demand to set aside the 20,000 ballots, requesting proof that the names on the list were indeed foreign nationals. According to the California government, no such evidence has been provided.

The Trump administration last week charged 28 foreign nationals in California with election-related infractions, but some of the accused told the Los Angeles Times they had never registered to vote.

The newspaper’s reporting suggested some of the non-citizen defendants shared the same name as eligible voters.

As the October 15 lawsuit navigated the court system earlier this month, the Trump administration sought an emergency ruling from the 9th Circuit Court to suspend the 20,000 ballots.

But the appeals court rejected the petition on Monday, saying the Trump administration had not given lower courts adequate time to weigh the matter.

A lower court ultimately ruled against the Trump administration on Wednesday, and the administration again appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.

In its majority decision, the appeals court framed the Trump administration’s lawsuit as an attempt to violate the Constitution’s Elections Clause.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” the majority wrote.

The majority also wrote that it had “major concerns” that granting the Trump administration’s request would “harm the public interest by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy”.

Alieu Kosiah killed civilians and unarmed soldiers, and ordered lootings and other crimes against humanity.

Switzerland’s supreme court upheld a 20-year jail sentence for former Liberian rebel commander Alieu Kosiah on Friday, but overturned a conviction for crimes against humanity.

In 2021, Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court found Kosiah, now 51, guilty of multiple atrocities committed during the first of Liberia’s back-to-back civil wars, in which about 250,000 people died between 1989 and 2003.

In 2023, the court’s appeals chamber upheld his 20-year sentence for war crimes and, for the first time in Swiss history, also made a new ruling that Kosiah was guilty of crimes against humanity.

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland was asked to review the case, and its verdict, dated September 28, was published on Friday.

The court “rejected the appeal filed by a high-ranking Liberian military official challenging his conviction for violations of the laws of war committed between 1993 and 1995 during the first Liberian civil war”, it said in a statement.

“However, the court has acquitted the individual of the charge of crimes against humanity, based on a strict application of the principle of non-retroactivity.”

Switzerland recognises the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows it to prosecute individuals suspected of international crimes, regardless of where those crimes were committed.

The court said the offence of crimes against humanity – introduced into Swiss law in 2011 – could not be applied to acts committed before then.

Kosiah’s conviction for violating the law of war was upheld, as was the maximum 20-year custodial sentence imposed.

“The decision makes final the first war crimes conviction ever handed down by a Swiss civilian court, and the first conviction anywhere of a Liberian for war crimes committed during the country’s civil wars,” said the Swiss organisation Civitas Maxima, which works to bring perpetrators of international crimes to justice.

Kosiah settled in Switzerland in the late 1990s and was arrested in 2014.

“Today the survivors of Alieu Kosiah’s crimes have final justice,” said Civitas Maxima director Alain Werner, who represents victims in the case.

“We are, however, deeply disappointed by the acquittal on crimes against humanity. What happened in Lofa between 1993 and 1995 is the very definition of a crime against humanity.”

Like war crimes, crimes against humanity refer to atrocities, including murder, torture and rape. However, instead of isolated or sporadic events, the charge is used for incidents carried out in a widespread or systematic way.

In the 2021 verdict, Kosiah was found guilty of a slew of war crimes committed as commander of the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy rebel group.

He ordered or participated in the killing of 17 civilians and two unarmed soldiers, as well as rape and the deployment of a child soldier, the court ruled.

He had also ordered looting and repeatedly ordered, or had himself inflicted, cruel and humiliating treatment of civilians and mishandled corpses, according to the verdict.

The officer faces charges after allegedly striking a fleeing construction worker with an SUV during an immigration raid.

A grand jury in Texas has indicted a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer accused of deliberately running over a Mexican construction worker during an operation in Houston this month.

ICE officer Mario Alberto Morales faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for the October 10 incident, Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare announced on Friday.

Criminal charges against federal immigration officers have been rare during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, although several encounters involving officers have prompted investigations.

Morales is accused of striking 48-year-old Miguel Parra-Hernandez, an immigrant who has lived in Harris County for more than 30 years. Teare said that Parra-Hernandez had no criminal record.

Parra-Hernandez was running away from federal agents when an unmarked black Jeep Cherokee struck him in a car park near Clay Road and Highway 6, according to investigators. He suffered multiple fractures to his right leg and an ankle injury which required surgery.

The indictment follows a dispute between local prosecutors and federal authorities over what happened. ICE has maintained that Parra-Hernandez ran in front of the vehicle, dismissing the allegations that the officer intentionally struck him as “reckless and false.”

But Teare has said surveillance video contradicts the agency’s account.

It shows the SUV crossing a median and pursuing Parra-Hernandez as he runs away. Although another vehicle obscures the moment of impact, the video shows the man on the ground moments later.

Authorities also released body-camera footage on Friday. In the recording, Morales can be heard acknowledging that he struck Parra-Hernandez with his vehicle.

Teare also accused federal authorities of failing to cooperate with the investigation, including by removing the Jeep before local investigators could examine it for potential evidence.

A search warrant obtained by local media shows investigators had not been granted access to the vehicle as of October 23.

The case has also raised questions about the operation’s intended target. ICE said agents were searching for a man identified as Jose Mendoza-Cervantes, whom they believed to be travelling with Parra-Hernandez.

But Mendoza-Cervantes’s daughter told The New York Times that her father died in 2017. Parra-Hernandez’s family has disputed that the two men knew each other.

The Morales indictment comes as the Harris County District Attorney’s Office continues investigating the fatal shooting of another Mexican, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, on July 7.

An ICE officer, Gregory Feathers, has been accused of firing at the vehicle Salgado Araujo was driving on his way to work in Houston.

Federal authorities said the officer acted in self-defence, a claim the surviving passengers in the vehicle dispute.

US District Judge Richard Stearns sided with 25 states and the District of Columbia which sued the administration.

A federal judge has ruled against enforcing a new rule by the administration of US President Donald Trump that would require chronically ill people on Medicaid, a public health insurance programme for low-income individuals, to prove themselves “medically frail” to qualify for work exemptions.

US District Judge Richard Stearns blocked the rule on Thursday, siding with 25 states and the District of Columbia, which had sued the Trump administration in June over the change, arguing that it unlawfully limits exemptions for people with serious medical conditions.

The law says the definition of medically frail must include people who are blind or disabled, have substance use disorders or disabling mental disorders, have certain disabilities that significantly impair daily activities, or have serious or complex medical conditions.

‘Significantly impair’ abilities

But the administration’s rule went further, requiring people in those categories to show that their conditions also “significantly impair” their ability to comply with the law’s work requirements.

The plaintiffs argued that the stricter rule would prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need, and that it oversteps the law’s text.

“The states have met their burden of showing irreparable harm for which monetary damages would provide inadequate compensation – they face the burden of costly and intensive alterations to their eligibility verification systems,” Stearns said in his 16-page ruling.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency that adopted the rule, declined to comment.

Medicaid is a public health insurance programme for low-income people, funded by state and federal governments.

Two restrictions upheld

Starting January 1, 2027, Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19 to 64 must show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programmes, among others.

Notably, while the ruling will make it easier for some Medicaid recipients with qualifying medical conditions to obtain an exemption from the new work requirements, Stearns’s decision does not strike down the work requirements as unlawful.

Stearns serves in the District of Massachusetts and was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

His ruling upheld two other federal restrictions on how states can verify medical frailty that the states and the District of Columbia had also contested.

Soon after a federal judge in Los Angeles sharply rejected a Trump administration effort to block 20,000 California ballots from voters it alleged may be noncitizens, the U.S. Justice Department announced it will appeal — leaving attorneys on both sides preparing Thursday for yet another court battle.

That was despite the lower court judge calling the request an unlawful threat to eligible voters in Tuesday’s midterm election and to free and fair American elections moving forward, and the same appellate court having already rejected the same plan days prior.

“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” wrote First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead prosecutor in L.A.

Early Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom swiped back at the Trump administration, writing, “A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.”

With just days to go until polls close, the heated election war between California and the Trump administration is showing no signs of slowing down, despite multiple court orders rejecting the administration’s central effort to interfere in the midterms by accusing state and county officials of willfully turning a blind eye to voter fraud.

That’s in part because lawyers within the U.S. Justice Department have been unrelenting in their pursuit of such control, both through court orders and threats to state and county officials. It’s also because those same officials have refused to yield, denouncing the threats in recent letters back to the Justice Department as unconvincing and illegal.

“Be aware that we consider DOJ’s efforts to threaten California election officials with criminal sanctions for following federal and state law to be an effort to unlawfully intimidate both election officials and California voters, which can undermine voters’ faith in the election process,” Susan K. Blitch, counsel for Monterey County, wrote in one.

Several elections experts warned the administration is trying to sow confusion and suspicion around an election in which the Republican Party is poised to lose ground, in part so they can reject the outcome. But they also said the courts have consistently rebuffed the Trump administration, and will continue to do so through Nov. 3 and after — with the recent rulings in the case over the 20,000 flagged ballots a perfect example.

“The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” said Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

Appeal, rebuke, appeal

Last week, Trump administration attorneys decided that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was not ruling quickly enough on their emergency request for a temporary restraining order to block California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from counting the 20,000 ballots it asserted were from “likely noncitizens” — so they appealed straight to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, a three-judge panel there — including two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because Carter hadn’t been given a chance to weigh in. However, two of the judges — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — also wrote separately to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits, too, for being likely unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

On Wednesday, Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, issued his own ruling, in which he wrote that the administration’s allegations about noncitizen voters were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

Carter wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

The ruling — forceful, unequivocal and based on several of the same arguments made by Bennett and Sanchez — was cheered by state officials and voting rights groups. Elections experts said it squared directly with their understanding of the law, and was appropriate in the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented, legally baseless effort to intervene in an ongoing state-run election.

Trump administration officials did not see it that way, and weren’t taking no for an answer. Justice Department lawyers promptly filed notice of appeal back to the 9th Circuit — where the case is likely, though not guaranteed, to land before the same three-judge panel that previously rejected the administration’s demands.

War of words

On Wednesday night, Newsom appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and predicted Trump will take sweeping steps to “literally suppress the vote, to set the conditions where he will then express doubt in the electoral outcome, and suggest that it was rigged.” But he also said California is fighting back and prepared.

“Right now, I am focused on getting over 1,000 poll workers, folks out there to monitor the DOJ monitors that Trump’s gonna send to try to steal this election,” Newsom said. “We have been running tabletop exercises. We have 1,000 volunteers. We have 134 election law attorneys that we’re sending out.”

On Thursday, Essayli replied to the latter deployment, writing, “You’re going to protect every legal or illegal vote? What about California citizens whose votes are being diluted by ineligible voters. Do their constitutional rights matter.”

Trump, meanwhile, asserted with no evidence that “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.” He said California has “very corrupt elections,” and that if it had honest ones, he “would have won it by a lot.”

The remarks were just the latest in a swirling and highly public war of words between state and federal officials.

In Carter’s courtroom Tuesday, Essayli claimed the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since it first demanded the state set aside ballots, and said he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials had been. But Essayli and other Justice Department officials have been engaged for weeks in an aggressive back and forth with California officials online — which is highly unusual for prosecutors actively litigating related cases.

When Newsom’s office recently wrote that “Trump’s DOJ is so desperate to invent ‘widespread voter fraud,’ it sent California counties lists of people who NEVER voted — and voters from the WRONG COUNTY. Absolute clown show!,” Essayli shot back, “Hey Fraud King,” with a crown emoji. “We’re not waiting for them to vote.”

Also unusual have been the threats Justice Department attorneys have been sending to county elections officials in California, including in a series of Oct. 23 letters in which they asserted varying numbers of “likely aliens” per county, set a 48-hour deadline for the counties to cooperate with federal authorities to prove those voters are citizens.

In one letter to Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian flagged 407 potential noncitizens in the county, and said he was writing “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications” of processing any ballots from those voters.

On Wednesday, Thomas L. Geiger, Contra Costa County counsel, responded with his own letter, questioning the accuracy of the noncitizen claims and saying it would be “legally unsound” for Connelly to “disregard both California and federal law” in order to comply with Missakian’s demands.

Other county attorneys hit a sharper tone in their own responses. Tony Lopresti, an attorney for Santa Clara County, wrote that his county “reserves its rights to pursue all legal remedies against DOJ for its unlawful intimidation of election officials and California voters.”

Trump administration issues more than 100 subpoenas across 13 states as search for alleged noncitizen voters ramps up.

A United States judge has rejected a Department of Justice request to temporarily halt California from counting mail ballots from a list of 20,000 alleged noncitizens just six days before the country’s midterm elections.

US District Judge David Carter’s ruling on Wednesday came as US President Donald Trump expands efforts to search for alleged noncitizen voters, with subpoenas issued in at least 13 states.

“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote on Wednesday.

The judge, a 1998 appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the Justice Department’s last-minute request to exclude more than 20,000 ballots ran afoul of “longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections”.

The Justice Department swiftly appealed the decision to the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals and did not immediately respond to requests for comment by the Reuters news agency.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit on October 15, a rare intervention in the voting process weeks before Tuesday’s election, when voters will choose which party controls Congress as well as their state and local representatives.

Escalating efforts from Trump

The decision marks the latest setback in Trump’s effort to expand the federal government’s role in elections ahead of the legislative midterms, as his Republican Party fights to retain control of both houses of Congress.

The Trump administration issued more than 100 subpoenas demanding records on tens of thousands of voters in at least 13 states, both Republican- and Democratic-leaning.

Most of the subpoenas Reuters documented were issued to state and local election officials in the past three months, though some date to the start of the year. Many were previously unreported, revealing a federal effort to identify potential noncitizen voters that is broader than publicly known.

It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in US federal elections. Legal experts say the records could be used to contest close midterm results, despite scant evidence that noncitizen voting is widespread.

‘Deeply flawed process’

Also on Wednesday, Democracy Docket, a US media platform that tracks election litigation, reported that the Department of Justice list of alleged noncitizen voters “appears to have been created using a deeply flawed process” that could disenfranchise US citizen voters beyond California.

In a court filing, a government whistleblower revealed that voters were being scrutinised nationwide, not just in California, as part of the federal government’s “Unlawful Voter Initiative” investigation, the group reported. The whistleblower warned that “the current process is knowingly sweeping known US citizens in as potentially ‘unlawful voters’”.

California has said the state’s safeguards against noncitizen voting are robust. It said the Justice Department’s assertions relied on “suspect data” and that complying with its demands would risk disenfranchising eligible voters. Democracy Docket reported that in Los Angeles County, one in four voters on the “noncitizen” list were born in the US.

Government says Salim Said ‘hit the jackpot’ in a scheme claiming to feed needy children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A 37-year-old man who played a key role in defrauding a United States food programme in the state of Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic has been sentenced to 30 years in prison, in a case that has drawn intense national scrutiny and political pressure from President Donald Trump.

The widespread scheme in Minnesota, which resulted in dozens of convictions, has repeatedly drawn attacks from Trump, who ridiculed the Democratic governor for failing to stop the scheme and cited it as grounds for an immigration crackdown in the state’s largest cities.

Salim Said, who operated Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, was accused of vastly overstating the number of meals when seeking payment for providing food to needy children. The government said he was responsible for $44 million in fraud, some of which was committed by others he recruited.

“You took more than taxpayers’ dollars to enrich yourself. You took the reputation of our state down with you,” US District Judge Nancy Brasel said.

Said was claiming a “ridiculous daily distribution of 6,000 meals” while FBI cameras showed 40 people a day collecting food, prosecutors said in a court filing.

“The defendant and his sites did not serve thousands of children; he served a calculated, lucrative lie,” prosecutors said.

Said, who was born in Somalia, denied the allegations while testifying at his 2025 trial, saying many meals were delivered off site. But he changed course and expressed remorse at his sentencing on Wednesday.

Defence lawyer Barry Zone, who had asked for a 12-year prison sentence, disputed the government’s claim that Said was the “architect”.

COVID-19 brought changes to a federal programme that typically fed children through schools. Restaurants could participate, and food distribution was extended to places outside schools.

“For 21 consecutive months, Said made thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims,” prosecutors said. “Each submission represented meals purportedly provided to underprivileged children, yet the listed children themselves were entirely fictitious.”

The government said Said hit the jackpot, using the stolen funds to buy a $1.2 million home, commercial real estate and an $87,000 pickup truck.

Said was convicted in 2025 alongside Aimee Bock, leader of the Minnesota nonprofit Feeding Our Future, who is serving a 42-year prison sentence for devising the scheme and was ordered to repay $242 million.

State auditors found that Minnesota’s education department received numerous complaints about Feeding Our Future but often told the group to police itself. Following relentless criticism from Trump over theft in federally funded programmes, Governor Tim Walz announced in January that he would not run for re-election.

RUSSELL Brand had an “insane sexual appetite” and treated women poorly, his former PA told his rape trial yesterday.

Helen Berger described him as a “peacock” who would allegedly find random women online to satisfy his lust.

Ms Berger, who worked with the comedian from June 2006 to February 2007, said: “Though I’ve worked with a lot of celebrities before and seen a lot of people normalising bad behaviour, this was on another level.”

In a statement read to Southwark crown court, she said Brand, now 51, was having sex day and night and described him getting “antsy” on deadlines.

She said he would joke: “May I go and have sex now?”

But she said sexual activity would also make him depressed.

Read more on Russell Brand

BRAND TRIAL

Russell Brand in ‘f*****g sheets’ rant after alleged rape, court hears

‘RAPE’ TRIAL

Brand jury shown pics of home where he ‘raped woman & told her clean up mess’

Ms Berger, who worked for Brand through his agent John Noel, told the court she would often be called to go to the comedian’s flat in Camden, North London, where she found he was always in his underwear.

She described seeing him use MySpace to find women and invite them over for sex.

She also recalled being instructed to get phone numbers for Brand from female fans when she first started working for him but said she felt uncomfortable and told him she would not do it anymore.

Ms Berger said she quit working for Brand within months because she became sick of him.

She wrote: “I worked a lot and was exhausted, emotional, and it was a lot to deal with.

“I always had to manage my emotions around him. He had an insane sexual appetite and was sleeping with people day and night.

“He was very open about what his needs were. We didn’t have a specific conversation about it.”

Brand, supported in court by wife Laura Gallacher, denies three rapes, three sexual assaults and indecent assault on six women between 1999 and 2009.

Mr Justice Bennathan told jurors the defence case would begin today.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Comey, who was fired during Trump’s first term, has been accused of unlawfully divulging national security information

James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is facing a third set of criminal charges under the administration of United States President Donald Trump.

On Monday, sealed documents came to light showing that the Trump administration accused Comey of two counts related to the unlawful dissemination of “information related to national defence”.

Comey, a high-profile Trump critic, has not been indicted in the case. He has denied any wrongdoing.

But it is the third time the Trump administration has sought to level a criminal case against the former FBI director since the president returned to office in January 2025.

In a video on the online platform Substack, Comey once again denounced the Trump administration’s attempts to prosecute him as a campaign of political retribution.

“Well, now they’re back again. it would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to,” Comey said.

“Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent, and I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”

He also noted that Trump is only midway through his second term, and he hinted that he expects more criminal charges to come.

“The next couple years are going to be hard for all of us,” Comey added. “It’s really important that we stand straight and keep the faith in America.”

More details to come.

President Javier Milei’s role in cryptocurrency launch does not translate into a fraudulent scheme, judge says.

An Argentinian federal judge has dropped a criminal investigation into President Javier Milei and his sister Karina Milei over the collapse of a cryptocurrency he promoted online.

Judge Marcelo Martinez de Giorgi issued the decision on Friday, according to court records, ending an inquiry into Milei’s role in the launch of the $Libra token, which crashed after a brief rally.

“The reported events do not constitute a criminal offence,” the judge said in a ruling. He also wrote that investor losses and the rise and fall in the currency’s price were insufficient to establish fraud.

In his ruling, Martinez de Giorgi said that Milei’s institutional standing could have given the launch “greater impact” when he posted about it, but that does not translate into a fraudulent scheme.

Javier Milei recommended the little-known meme coin in a post on X in February 2025. He later deleted the post and denied any link to the cryptocurrency, whose value soon plunged.

The judge also dismissed an investigation into US businessman Hayden Davis, who described himself as a “launch adviser” for the token. Davis has acknowledged that he held close to $100m after the crash and denies any wrongdoing.

“For the first time in history, a President of the Nation was investigated with complete freedom, resulting in absolute proof of his innocence,” read a post shared on X by the official presidential office.

“The question that remains is this: Who will take responsibility for having wasted Argentine taxpayers’ money and the President of the Nation’s time in a failed attempt at an institutional coup?”

Milei’s friendship with Trump

Milei is one of US President Donald Trump’s closest allies. Trump firmly backed him a year ago and has called him his “favourite president”.

Trump made clear the support hinged on a victory for Milei’s party.

“I’m with this man because his philosophy is correct,” he said ahead of a White House lunch with the Argentinian leader last year. “If he wins, we’re staying with him. And if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”

Earlier this month, Milei urged Trump to emerge stronger from the US midterm elections, saying the vote mattered for the West as a whole.

Austerity at home

Since taking office in 2023, Milei has laid off thousands of state employees, shut ministries, cut subsidies and reduced government-funded programmes. The measures were meant to fight high inflation, which has fallen to about 2 percent a month.

Milei says his plan is working, claiming that Argentina has grown for 27 consecutive months and is expanding at four times its historical rate.

When the coin crashed, Milei said he had acted “in good faith” and accused his political rivals of trying to exploit the situation.

Homeland Security targets nine states in a push to identify voting fraud, a move critics denounce as tantamount to voter intimidation.

A United States federal judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt operations aimed at finding non-citizen voters in nine states ahead of the midterm elections.

The ruling by US District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said the investigations likely violate a provision of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits voter intimidation. She further said the DHS may have relied on flawed data in its investigations.

That leads to “an objectively reasonable fear of law enforcement entanglements that intimidates citizens from urging or aiding others in exercising their right to vote”, she wrote.

The order applies to federal efforts targeting California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

The DHS has publicised what it has described as a push to identify individuals who have committed voter fraud, with some local offices posting photos of agents knocking on the doors of suspects.

The operations come as the administration of US President Donald Trump has sought to highlight instances of voter fraud ahead of the November 3 midterm vote.

While there are recorded instances of fraud in every election cycle, such isolated cases remain exceedingly rare.

There has been no evidence to indicate that non-citizen voters have influenced the outcome of any election at any level in the country.

In a statement following Thursday’s ruling, the DHS maintained that its investigations were aimed at “removing aliens who vote and dilute the votes of US citizens”.

“We have no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be US citizens,” it said.

In their lawsuit challenging the DHS’s efforts, the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, along with the Voto Latino Foundation, San Francisco and Santa Clara County, said that some US citizens felt they were wrongly identified and questioned as part of the investigations.

A lawyer representing the groups said it was “clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people’s homes weeks before an election”.

Benjamin Farley, the supervisory counsel for democracy defense at the National Immigration Law Center, said the ruling sent a strong message about voter intimidation ahead of the midterm vote.

“Yesterday’s decision is a clear rebuke of the government’s efforts to scare voters away from the polls this November and a reminder that all US citizens – regardless of color, place of birth, or the nationality of their family members – have the right to participate in American elections free of intimidation,” he said.

“No armed federal agent is going to stop us from casting our vote.”

Class action could be first in Australia to blame social media for harming its users.

Meta and its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are facing a class action lawsuit in Australia over allegations that addictive design features are harming children and teenagers.

The lawsuit, filed by MinterEllison in the Australian Federal Court, seeks to recover compensation for current and former users of Facebook and Instagram who claim they were exposed to harmful content or developed an addiction to social media as a result of using those platforms, the law firm said in a statement released on Thursday.

“This proceeding raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia. Those questions will now be considered through the Federal Court process,” MinterEllison Partner William Nolan said in the statement.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by Meta while they were below the age of 18.

In a suppression order on Monday, the court prohibited the reporting of any information that could reveal their identities and the statement of claim.

“We are aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Litigation Lending Services said it was funding the class action for Australian families who “would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant”.

The lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Australia and Big Tech after a world-first ban on social media for children below 16 in 2025, and newly proposed rules that could let users switch off algorithm-driven content on their feeds.

Meta agreed in August to pay $18bn to settle with nearly all US states to resolve claims that it designed social media to addict children.

US federal judge blocked wall’s construction on Texas-Mexico border amid an ongoing legal battle.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to resume plans to build a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas, as part of its anti-immigration policy to strengthen security on the border with Mexico.

The Justice Department filed an emergency request on Wednesday asking the court to lift a federal judge’s injunction in a lower court that has halted construction while a lawsuit against the project, brought by an environmental group and other challengers, plays out.

The Department of Homeland Security plans include vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting and detection technology in and around Big Bend National Park.

Big Bend has about 805km (500 miles) of border, and, according to opponents of the project who have sued the administration, accounts for about 1 percent of migrant arrests.

Landscape, historic church

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs including the Center for Biological Diversity and a Big Bend-area river guide, seeks to preserve the landscape, protect a historic church, and challenge the federal government’s waivers of environmental and historical laws to fast-track the $1.7bn project.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who issued the waivers between February and July, found the region to be an “area of high illegal entry”, requiring additional barriers to control the border.

US District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an injunction in El Paso on October 2 halting work “until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws,” she wrote in her order.

In a later opinion, the judge found that the waivers exceeded the authority of Noem and Mullin.

The Justice Department in its request urged the Supreme Court to pause or overturn Cardone’s injunction.

The Supreme Court has not yet responded to this appeal.

“Even assuming that the secretary’s waiver authority implicates a question of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ Congress did clearly authorize the secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements in order to facilitate their expeditious construction,” the Justice Department wrote.

In August, the administration paused construction in Big Bend after the project drew bipartisan criticism over its potential impact on the park’s landscape and wildlife.