judges

Strictly live updates: Josh Widdicombe’s co-star speaks out as judge’s decision sparks uproar

Shaun Wright-Phillips on Instagram: “Last night was a challenge, but as always, we dance, we smile, and we keep going! Thank you to all those who voted and supported as always 🙌🏾🕺🏾 #strictly”

5,020 likes, 64 comments – shaunwp98 on October 25, 2026: “Last night was a challenge, but as always, we dance, we smile, and we keep going! Thank you to all those who voted and supported as always 🙌🏾🕺🏾 #strictly”.

instagram.com



Source link

Strictly updates – Former star returns to the show as judges become Oasis for Icons Week

Sarah Storey's performance with Julian

Sarah Storey’s performance with Julian(Image: BBC)

Sarah Storey’s performance didn’t just have the judges talking!

Judge Anton told Britain’s most successful Paralympian that she was better than she thought she was.

Craig told her she looked “fantastic”, but her solo dancing saw her “drop the ball”. Motsi didn’t agree entirely with Craig, saying she was “playing the role”.

As the scores came in, Sarah was given a message from icon Shania Twain herself, leaving them screaming.

Shania shared her hopes to see Sarah and Julian’s Tango at one of her UK shows. As for the scores, they were 5, 5, 5, 6, equalling a total of 21.

Shania Twain has her say on Strictly

Shania Twain has her say on Strictly(Image: BBC)

Source link

Heated outbursts, tense lawyer row & judge’s stark warning… inside Katie Price’s fiery appearance at Kieran ‘rape’ trial

KATIE Price’s third and final day of evidence at Kieran Hayler’s alleged rape trial spiralled into fiery court outbursts and a stark warning from the judge.

The former glamour model lashed out at Hayler’s lawyer – accusing her of “slander” and ranting: “I won’t have anybody call me a liar”.

Katie Price’s evidence descended into fiery exchanges and outbursts Credit: Doug Seeburg
She was giving evidence at Kieran Hayler’s alleged rape trial Credit: PA

Despiter being slapped down about her outbursts, Katie continued to row with Arlette Piercy as her cross-examination became more heated.

In one tense exchange, she asked the defence lawyer: “Are you calling me a liar?”

Ms Piercy replied: “I am.”

Katie then responded: “I don’t need to be here. You can see in black and white something’s gone on.

‘RAPE’ CASE

Russell Brand told pal ‘I may have gone too far’ with woman he ‘raped in hotel’


KATIE FURY

Katie Price rants ‘I won’t be called a liar’ in fiery exchange at Hayler trial

“I won’t have anybody call me a liar.”

Katie also branded Hayler, who is accused of raping and sexually a 13-year-old girl, a “wrong’un” and said: “You shouldn’t turn this case against me”.

She continued: “The real reason why we’re here is what he’s done to a child, not me.”

Ms Piercy then said she “can’t continue like this” after Katie repeatedly spoke over her.

She said: “Because you know I’m right.

“I won’t have anyone tell me I’m a liar. I’m not a liar.”

Hayler was married to Katie Price at the time Credit: Getty
He and Katie married in 2013 Credit: Dan Charity – The Sun

After Ms Piercy then referenced “cocaine and booze benders”, the reality star snapped back: “That’s discrimination.

“Everyone knows I self-medicated on coke due to Kieran introducing it.

“You are wrong and trying to discriminate me. The press know it all because of my journey. I ended up in therapy and tried to kill myself twice.

“You’re not going to slander my name. I don’t care if you are a barrister, you are not going to slander my name like that.

“I don’t need to sit here like a therapy session.”

Judge Mark van der Zwart was forced to intervene and told Katie to “stop talking please”.

He urged: “Take a drink, take a breath, take a moment.”

As she continued to try to talk, the judge continued: “Ms Price, let’s leave it there please.”

It came after she was given a prior warning by the judge to keep her views to herself following another rant yesterday.

Katie had claimed there were “other kids that haven’t come forward” during yet another tense exchange with Ms Piercy.

But the judge said: “When you’re being asked questions today please would you not mention any beliefs you may have whether Kieran Hayler has behaved inappropriately with anyone else apart from (the complainant).”

When she began repeating other allegations, she was slapped down by the judge.

He said: “I’m going to stop you there, Ms Price.

“Ms Price, golden rule: when I talk, nobody else does.”

She replied: “OK, sorry.”

Katie told jurors how she had confronted her then-husband over the allegations Credit: PA
She called the allegations ‘disgusting’ Credit: James Shaw

Hayler has denied the allegations, which allegedly took place in West Sussex while he was married to Katie.

The complainant is not a member of his or Katie’s extended family.

Katie, 48, yesterday told jurors she did not have “any venom” against her ex-husband and said their split was “amicable”.

She also said she had not read any media reports of his trial because she had been “handcuffed to Suella Braverman all week” for a Channel 4 show.

Jurors were told how she had messaged the girl and vowed to make her a “little star” while quizzing her about whether she had kissed Hayler.

The exchange happened in May 2017 – eight months after the last alleged attack by Hayler, it was said.

Katie wrote: “I WON’T say anything and I PROMISE I’ll protect you!

“I’m only asking as this is a serious allegation to say.”

The girl, who was 14 at the time of the message exchange, replied: “It was just a flirt thing and he knew it was wrong. Nothing happened.”

Katie said: “Was it just a flirt and what did he do to realise it was wrong? Did he try (to) kiss you?

“I won’t bring (it) up anymore (I) just want (the) truth! I will make you a little star.

“Please help and tell me… as long as I know the truth, I won’t say. I PROMISE.”

Giving evidence behind a screen, Katie said it was “just a figure of speech” and claimed there was “no agenda or nothing behind it”.

She also denied being “angry and vengeful” towards Hayler and said she did not have a “vendetta” against him.

She ended her evidence yesterday by opening up about her mum Amy, 74, who has lung condition Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF).

Katie said: “My mum’s dying at the moment and I haven’t been able to see her (because) I’ve got a cold… she’s got days.

“I did promise my mum I’d see her tomorrow.”

The girl, now 23, reported her allegations to the NSPCC in 2021.

The children’s charity then referred it to police and she was interviewed by cops in December 2021, with Hayler questioned the following month.

He denied any of the allegations took place and that anything sexual occurred.

Jurors heard he also told police in his first interview of the allegations in January 2022 that he believed he was being “set up”.

He said “100 per cent” he had not raped the girl, adding: “No never, the thought someone thinks I would do that is horrible, it makes me feel sick.”

Hayler also said to officers that he believed Katie had “planted a seed to (the complainant)”.

He added: “It’s like a smear campaign to ruin me.

“For this to come completely out of the blue I feel like somebody here is trying to set me up.

“Kate would put pressure on anybody. For her to not have anything on me I think kills her a little bit inside.”

In court, Katie described the allegations as “disgusting” but said she never went to the press or police about it and it was the complainant who reported it.

Hayler, who has worked as a stripper and actor, married Katie at a luxury resort in the Bahamas in 2013.

He was her third husband following her marriages to singer Peter Andre and cage fighter Alex Reid.

Katie and Hayler split in 2018 and formally divorced in 2021.

The trial continues.

Source link

Small Group Sits as Jury on Would-Be Judges : Appointments: A little-known informal panel has quietly helped the governor pick 11 of the 27 jurists in the county courts.

For the past eight years, a small group of influential Ventura County Republicans has played a pivotal role in the selection of every new judge in the Superior and Municipal courts.

Working out of the public eye, this little-known group of judicial advisers has helped pick almost half the judges now serving in the Ventura County courts–its recommendations almost always accepted by Gov. George Deukmejian.

For the record:

12:00 a.m. Dec. 5, 1990 For the Record

Los Angeles Times Wednesday December 5, 1990 Ventura County Edition Metro Part B Page 4 Column 1 Zones Desk 2 inches; 58 words Type of Material: Correction

Local judges–An article Sunday incorrectly reported that all of the 11 local judges appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian are white and that nine of them are former prosecutors. In fact, Municipal Judge Herbert Curtis III is black, and the number of ex-prosecutors is eight. Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Yegan, a former deputy public defender, was incorrectly identified as an ex-deputy district attorney.

The most influential of the advisers–according to several sources–is Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, who has helped secure judicial appointments for nine assistant prosecutors out of the 11 judgeships that have opened up since Deukmejian’s election in 1982.

In addition to Bradbury’s input, three of the county’s top Republican Party stalwarts serve as an informal judicial screening panel for Deukmejian.

They are Paul Leavens of Ventura, former county campaign chairman for Deukmejian; Gwen Tillemans of Oxnard, county Republican chairwoman; and Katherine H. Haley of Ojai, a major Republican fund-raiser.

The four have helped give a conservative and prosecution-oriented shape to the county’s bench for years to come, but whether they will enjoy a similar advisory role in the administration of Republican Gov.-elect Pete Wilson remains to be seen.

Leavens, Tillemans and Haley say that, in the informal structure of the county panel’s makeup, they see themselves as a separate panel of political advisers to the governor that usually checks with Bradbury before making judicial recommendations to Deukmejian.

Leavens is among those who candidly admit that Bradbury is probably the most influential of Deukmejian’s local advisers, an opinion shared by many in the legal community.

“The district attorney in Ventura County, as I recall, is a very influential person,” said Charles Vogel, president of the California Bar Assn. “I think that he’s not shy about expressing his views and I think that he will endeavor to influence the composition of the court, since it’s important to him.”

“It is not sufficient for Kay Haley to say, ‘Gee, I’d like you to make Chuck Campbell a judge now,’ ” said Wendy Lascher, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn., referring to Municipal Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr.

“That’s how the governor gets the ideas for choosing who to nominate, and if it comes down to one or the other it makes a difference,” Lascher added. “I suspect Mike Bradbury has had more influence than the rest of those people put together.”

And Leavens conceded:

“I would never send a recommendation to the governor without checking with Mike. He’s probably the most influential one of all. He’s in and out of the courts. He knows who they are.”

Bradbury downplays his role in picking the county’s judges, insisting that the governor’s office consults the local district attorney on judicial openings in every county in California.

That statement is supported by Terry Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary, but disputed by a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner in Los Angeles, a Democrat, who said Deukmejian never consults Reiner or any other Democratic head prosecutors around the state.

“I’m treated no differently than any other district attorney in the state . . . the governor’s office seeks our input and we provide it if we have the pertinent information,” Bradbury said. “The governor is clearly his own person when it comes to judge appointments and he does not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of others.”

Nonetheless, Bradbury said that all 11 judges appointed by Deukmejian in the last eight years were recommended by him during the initial review process, including the nine former prosecutors from Bradbury’s office.

All the judges are white, nine of the 11 are Republicans and all but one are men.

Deukmejian appointed five out of the 15 sitting Superior Court judges, including Robert C. Bradley in 1984 and Barbara A. Lane, Kenneth R. Yegan, Frederick A. Jones and Edwin M. Osborne in 1986. All were elevated from Municipal Court positions. Osborne, a Democrat, is now presiding Superior Court judge.

Deukmejian also installed half of the 12 Ventura County Municipal Court judges, including Democrat Herbert Curtis III in 1984, John R. Smiley in 1986, Barry B. Klopfer in 1987, Charles W. Campbell Jr. and Ken W. Riley in 1988 and Thomas J. Hutchins in 1989.

Lane and Smiley, the only non-prosecutors, were appointed from private practice.

Bradbury’s influence in the judicial selection process, especially the elevation of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court, brought an expression of concern from one expert on legal ethics, Dean Gerald F. Uelmen of the Santa Clara University School of Law.

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a conflict that should preclude him from serving on the committee, but I think it’s a legitimate concern,” Uelmen said. “The danger would be that a judge would be more reluctant to rule against the D.A. on an issue that comes before him, for fear that it would jeopardize his prospects for advancement.”

Bradbury retorted:

“Gerry’s comment is the typical BS that he throws out on this and every other issue where he takes a very pro-defense point of view. I’ve never had any judge try and curry favor with me for any reason.”

Bradbury said he has “a fairly combative relationship” with Ventura County’s judges who dislike the fact that his policy against plea bargaining forces 12% to 15% of cases to trial, compared with 5% to 7% in most other counties.

Bradbury vehemently insisted he is “not on any committee” and added that “my views do not carry the kind of weight people attribute to me.” He said that Deukmejian’s office also consults with Sheriff John V. Gillespie on some appointments. Gillespie was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Each of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees in Ventura County began the selection process by calling or being recommended by someone on the informal three-member review panel, Leavens said.

Panel members never meet to discuss their work, but they often call each other and Bradbury to confer on nominees, said Leavens, whose Ventura-based Leavens Ranches company owns more than 1,000 acres of citrus and avocado orchards in Ventura and Monterey counties.

Each sends a letter of recommendation to Deukmejian’s office only “after conversing with people that know these people and learning who is well-respected, who has a good reputation and who would not embarrass the governor,” Leavens said.

Haley, a third-generation Ventura County resident described by some as “Mrs. Republican” in Ventura County, said she agrees with Leavens’ description of their work.

“The gist of it is that when there were people who had contacted us that were interested in serving as a judge . . . we investigated whether they were qualified people who could do the job. We’d write a letter and send it to the governor,” Haley said. “He wouldn’t always take our suggestion.”

Bradbury said that party loyalties play no role in his recommendations to Deukmejian. As for the fact that nearly all of Ventura County’s judges are Republican, he said:

“I have a hunch it’s because people that go into law enforcement organizations, for example, prosecutors, tend to be Republican. But we’ve got our share of Democrats in the office.”

Although the three review panel members do not automatically reject Democrats, Leavens and Tillemans said they screen the legal records, family background and political views of potential nominees to make sure that they will hew to Republican philosophies.

“Through the years, we’ve had so many judges that were very lenient in so many ways . . . so we look for the good Republican principles,” Tillemans said. Asked to outline the principles that are reflected in nominees’ legal briefs and judicial rulings, she said, “It’s more government by the people than government for the people.”

However, the three said that they do not delve into nominees’ personal lives.

“The kind of people we were talking to were all law-abiding citizens that were well-known in the legal community. Besides, isn’t that against the law anyway?” Haley said. “I never had anybody talk to us that had murdered anybody or threw his wife downstairs.”

And Leavens said they do not concern themselves with the nominees’ drinking habits or marital fidelity. “I think those things you wouldn’t have to ask about. You’d hear about them from other sources. Anybody that wants to go up is essentially pretty clean.”

The process of settling on a recommendation can take four to six months, said Tillemans, who when not working for her party promotes housing developments for the Dolphin Group, a Los Angeles-based lobbying and public relations firm with strong Republican political connections.

“We go over their resumes and we recommend the ones who we think are suitable and then the governor’s appointment secretary looks over them and it goes to Deukmejian,” she said.

But before Deukmejian makes any appointment, each nominee is reviewed by the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, a panel of 20 lawyers and six lay people, which does extensive background checks.

The so-called Jenny Commission also reviews a seven-page questionnaire in which each nominee lists experience on the bench and at the bar, outlines political affiliations and personal history, and answers the question, “Why do you want to be a judge?”

Once that process ends, the commission rates each nominee as extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified or “not ready for appointment at this time,” Flanigan said.

After reviewing the commission’s recommendations and letters on the nominees from local bar associations, the governor picks the nominee he feels is best suited for the slot, Flanigan said.

But this process could change in January–after what is sure to be a flurry of appointments by the outgoing Deukmejian–when Sen. Pete Wilson becomes governor, legal experts and Wilson associates agree.

Wilson has relied on an eight-member merit selection committee to make initial recommendations for federal judge appointments in the Central District of California. The panel included U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. District Judge William D. Keller and California Supreme Court Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who also served while a federal district judge.

Although critics on the federal bench challenged the propriety of letting federal judges help name their colleagues when the Wilson committee’s makeup was first revealed in 1986, the panel has continued to advise Wilson on federal judicial nominees. Federal judges are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of legislators.

And if Wilson’s taste in federal judges is any guide, his appointments to the state bench will differ to some degree from Deukmejian’s, said Vogel, the state bar association chief.

“It appears he is impressed with people who have good academic records,” Vogel said of Wilson. “If you look at his federal appointments, many of them were high achievers in college or law school.”

Vogel continued, “Deukmejian was the attorney general, he did work with prosecutors, he did work with government lawyers. He was pretty proud of them and felt somewhat in line with them and felt their expertise in government would fit them well in the bench.”

However, Wilson’s method of weeding out unwanted nominees probably will change for state appointees because state law requires nominees to be reviewed by the Jenny Commission, said John G. Davies, a San Diego lawyer who served as Wilson’s judicial selection adviser.

“Deukmejian and all the other governors in my lifetime have had local screening committees. I have no idea what Pete’s intentions are on that,” Davies said.

“We have over 4,000 judicial applications on file for Deukmejian,” Flanigan said. He predicted the lame-duck governor will fill many of the judicial vacancies before leaving office. “I think he’ll look at it as his greatest legacy.”

The retirement last week of Presiding Municipal Judge Lee E. Cooper Jr. virtually guarantees that Deukmejian’s local advisers will have further impact on the bench before Wilson takes office.

The Jenny Commission already has pumped nominees through the pipeline and readied them for the governor’s final approval, and the local advisers have made their recommendations for new openings, Bradbury said.

“It’s my sense that Deukmejian will fill every opening that he has available before he leaves office because the judiciary was a very important issue for him,” Bradbury said.

Once Wilson takes office, he will find the California justice system far larger and more of a challenge–with 1,500 judgeships–than the federal system he is accustomed to, said Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary.

Flanigan, who has been asked to keep his job through the first year of Wilson’s term, said that relying on a fixed group of people for input “would not be reasonable,” even though “there are lawyers and non-lawyers who we may talk to in the Deukmejian or future Wilson administration.” The ideal situation, he said, “is to talk to as broad a group as possible.”

Flanigan said the work of local advisers such as Bradbury, Leavens, Tillemans and Haley is vital to selecting the nominees that his office sends to the Jenny Commission–that is, the nominees who have a shot at being appointed by the governor.

“Wilson will follow the same road as Deukmejian in appointing conservative judges,” Tillemans predicted, “and we’re on that governor’s council now.”

Leavens’ wife, Carolyn Leavens, who was chairwoman of Wilson’s campaign in Ventura County, said she made a recommendation on one of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees–a duty she would gladly repeat for Wilson.

Bradbury, who actively campaigned for Wilson this year, said he is uncertain what his role will be in helping the new governor select future Ventura County judges.

But he added, “I would hope that Sen. Wilson would continue to seek the input of local public officials.”

Source link

Gov. Jerry Brown appoints Superior Court judges

Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday appointed 13 judges to Superior Court seats, including four posts in Los Angeles County. All but one of the appointees are Democrats.

Brown filled the Los Angeles County Superior Court vacancies with Julie Fox Blackshaw, deputy counsel to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; H. Jay Ford, currently a commissioner in the county court; Gregorio Roman, a deputy public defender; and private-practice lawyer Douglas Stern of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Blackshaw was a federal court special master from 2002 to 2010, and before that served as legal counsel for a Los Angeles police review commission. She takes the seat being vacated by the retirement of Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani.

In a 1992 story in The Times, Blackshaw was credited with winning the then-largest criminal fine ever levied in a defense contracting fraud case, while working part-time as an assistant U.S. attorney and taking care of her infant daughter.

Brown also named Tracie L. Brown, Harry M. Dorfman and Rochelle C. East to judgeships in the San Francisco County Superior Court, and Erin Alexander and Lisa Rogan to judgeships in the San Bernardino County Superior Court.

He appointed Patricia Guerrero and Michael Popkins to the San Diego County Superior Court.

ALSO:

California fires contractor on tech project

Overhaul of state payroll system at risk of collapse

Half-finished $208-million DMV technology overhaul canceled

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Source link

Justice Department files complaint against judges over immigration enforcement surge comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump administration files complaint against judges over media comments | Civil Rights News

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

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

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

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link