law

One person remains missing after a heavy avalanche engulfed a group of skiers in the Sierra Nevada mountains of the US.

Local authorities say that at least eight people have been found dead following an avalanche in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, the deadliest incident of its kind in more than 40 years.

Nevada County Sheriff Shannon Moon said on Wednesday that rescue crews have been hindered by difficult conditions during a powerful winter storm.

One person remains missing. Six of the 15 skiers buried by the avalanche were found alive.

“We are still looking for one of the members at this time,” Moon confirmed to reporters, adding that family members have been informed that the search has moved from rescue to recovery.

The deadly incident comes as California experiences a winter storm that has deluged the mountains near the popular winter destination of Lake Tahoe with heavy snow.

The Sierra Avalanche Center warned on Wednesday that the risk of further avalanches remains high in the area as several feet of additional snow contribute to unstable conditions.

The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services announced in a statement that it was “leading whole of government efforts to aid Nevada County”, which is located in eastern California, on the border with the neighbouring US state of Nevada.

“We are actively coordinating additional resources statewide to support avalanche search and rescue efforts to locate missing skiers near Castle Peak,” the office added.

Search-and-rescue teams were dispatched to the Castle Peak area after a call to emergency services reported that 15 people on a three-day trek had been buried by an avalanche on Tuesday morning.

“Our thoughts are with the missing individuals, their families, and first responders in the field,” the company Blackbird Mountain Guides said in a statement, noting that four guides were among those struck by the avalanche as they were returning to a trailhead.

A probation officer who was caught on video bending a teen in half.

A Torrance police officer who shot a man in the back as he walked away from a crime scene.

Seven California Highway Patrol officers who piled atop a man screaming “I can’t breathe” as he died following a drunk driving stop.

All three cases had similar outcomes: charges dropped or reduced to no time behind bars after a plea deal.

After a year in office, a pattern has emerged for L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who found himself saddled with a number of misconduct and abuse cases against police officers filed by his predecessor, George Gascón.

During his 2024 campaign, Hochman often chastised Gascón for filing cases he claimed wouldn’t hold up before a jury — while also promising to continue bringing prosecutions against police when warranted.

In recent months, Hochman has downgraded or outright dismissed charges in many high-profile cases that Gascón filed. In the two misconduct cases Hochman’s prosecutors have brought to trial, the district attorney’s office failed to win a conviction.

Those outcomes have infuriated the loved ones of victims of police violence, local activists and even former prosecutors, who say Hochman’s backslide on the issue was predictable after he received millions in campaign contributions from police unions.

Greg Apt, a former public defender who served under Gascón as second-in-command of the unit that prosecutes police cases, said he quit last year out of frustration with the new leadership.

“I had concerns that the cases were not going to be treated the same way under Hochman that they were under Gascón, that alleged police wrongdoing would not be given the same level of oversight,” he said.

Hochman has scoffed at the idea that he’s too cozy with cops to hold their feet to the fire, saying his campaign’s war chest reflected bipartisan support that included Democrats who have been critical of police.

The district attorney said he’s made decisions based on what he can actually prove in court, and argued case reviews within the Justice Systems Integrity Division have become even more rigorous under his leadership.

“I’m going to look at the facts and the law of any case. I don’t believe in the spaghetti against the wall approach where you throw the spaghetti against the wall, and see if anything sticks, and let the jury figure it out,” he said. “That would be me abdicating my responsibility.”

Hochman’s supporters argue he has restored balance to an office that was often filing cases against police that were either legally dubious or flat out unwinnable.

Tom Yu, a defense attorney who often represents cops accused of wrongdoing, said Hochman is handling things in a more fair and objective manner.

Former Torrance Police Officers Cody Weldin, center, and Christopher Tomsic, right, pleaded guilty last year in a conspiracy and vandalism case in which they allegedly spray painted a swastika on a car. Attorney Tom Yu, defense for Weldin, is seen listening to the proceedings.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“By and large, he’s not going after the cops. But he didn’t dismiss all the cases either. I’m OK with that,” Yu said. “On a personal level, I think he’s doing a very difficult job in the police cases, because someone is always going to be unhappy with the decisions he made.”

It is difficult to win a guilty verdict for an on-duty shooting, with no such convictions in Los Angeles County since 2000. Laws governing use-of-force give officers great latitude, often protecting them even when they shoot someone who is later found to be unarmed or in situations where video evidence shows no apparent threat.

Hochman questioned why he is being criticized when the California attorney general’s office has reviewed dozens of fatal shootings of unarmed persons throughout the state since 2020 and filed no criminal cases.

“If you bring weak cases and you lose, it undercuts your credibility of being any good at your job,” Hochman said. “It undercuts your credibility in saying that we believe in the facts and the law and bringing righteous cases.”

Hochman brought 15 cases against police officers in 2025, according to documents provided to The Times in response to a public records request, compared with 17 filed by Gascón in his final year in office.

But while Gascón had a strong focus on the kinds of excessive force cases the public was clamoring to see charged when he was elected in 2020, Hochman has more often filed charges for offenses such as fraud and evidence tampering.

Hochman’s recent dismissal of charges against most of the officers involved in the death of Edward Bronstein has drawn outcry from his family and at least one former prosecutor.

Bronstein died after screaming in agony as six California Highway Patrol officers piled on top of him in Altadena in 2020. The officers were trying to get a court-ordered blood draw after Bronstein was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.

Video from the scene shows Bronstein arguing with the officers while handcuffed and on his knees.

The officers warn Bronstein they’re going to force him down to get a sample. Right before they do, Bronstein mumbles that he’ll “do it willingly,” but they shove him face down while a seventh officer, Sgt. Michael Little, films the encounter. A minute passes. Then Bronstein’s body goes limp.

Officers can be seen trying to revive Bronstein, calling his name and slapping the side of his head, according to the video. But several minutes elapse before officers attempt to deliver oxygen or CPR. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón announces he will ask a judge to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez for the killing of their parents in 1989, a decision that could free the brothers.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In 2023, Gascón filed manslaughter charges against the seven officers, as well as the nurse who carried out the blood draw. But late last year, Hochman dismissed charges against all except Little, whose case was reduced to a misdemeanor, for which he received 12 months of probation. Little is no longer a CHP officer, according to an agency spokesman.

Prosecutors are still pursuing manslaughter charges against the nurse at the scene, Arbi Baghalian. His defense attorney, Joe Weimortz, said Baghalian had no control over the officers’ actions or the decision to pursue the blood draw. Weimortz also said he believed the officers were innocent.

Bronstein’s daughter, Brianna Ortega, 26, said in a recent interview that Hochman’s decision to drop the charges felt like a betrayal.

“It just seems like because they’re cops … they must get away with it,” Ortega said. “How are you going to put the blame on one person when all of you are grown men who know better? You have common sense. You have human decency. He is literally telling you he can’t breathe.”

The Los Angeles County coroner’s office could not conclusively determine Bronstein’s cause of death but attributed it to “acute methamphetamine intoxication during restraint by law enforcement.” Bronstein’s family was paid $24 million to settle a wrongful death suit in the case.

Hochman said his office reviewed depositions from the civil case — which he said Gascón did not do before filing a case — and did not believe he could win a manslaughter case because it was impossible to say any officer specifically caused Bronstein’s death. Hochman said the officers had no intent to harm the man and were following orders of a superior officer.

“We looked at each officer, what they knew, what their state of mind was at the time. Understanding that there was both a sergeant there and a nurse, who was in charge of not only taking the blood draw but obviously doing it in a safe manner, and then deciding whether or not we could meet the legal standard of involuntary manslaughter for each officer,” he said.

Edward Tapia, the father of Edward Bronstein, speaks at a news conference about his son, a 38-year-old Burbank man who died while being restrained by California Highway Patrol officers in 2020 after refusing to have his blood drawn after a traffic stop. The family received a $24-million civil rights settlement in 2023 after filing a lawsuit against the state.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Bronstein’s killing was one of three cases in which Hochman assigned new prosecutors in the months before a trial started or a plea deal was reached. Aside from the Bronstein case, the others ended in an acquittal or a hung jury. All three prosecutors who were removed from the unit that handles police misconduct cases had either been appointed by Gascón or had a political connection to the former district attorney.

“When somebody’s lived that case for years, and then you take them off, it suggests that you’re less than serious about winning that case,” said Apt, the former prosecutor on the Bronstein case.

Hochman said he was simply bringing in staff with more trial experience on each case, insisting politics had nothing to do with the transfers. One of the cases, which involved allegations of perjury against L.A. County sheriff’s deputies Jonathan Miramontes and Woodrow Kim, ended with a lightning fast acquittal. Records show jurors deliberated less than an hour before coming back with a not guilty verdict.

In the other case, Hochman’s staff came closer to convicting a cop for an on-duty shooting than anyone else has in L.A. County in a quarter-century.

Former Whittier police officers Salvador Murillo, left, and Cynthia Lopez during their arraignment at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles. Murillo was charged in a 2020 shooting that left an unarmed man paralyzed. Murillo’s trial ended with a deadlocked jury in November 2025.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Former Whittier Det. Salvador Murillo stood trial in November for shooting an unarmed man in the back as he fled down an alley in 2023. Nicholas Carrillo ran away on foot from a vehicle stop and was leaping over a fence — unarmed — when Murillo squeezed off four rounds. Two severed Carillo’s spine, paralyzing him.

The jury came back deadlocked, although a majority of the panel was leaning toward a conviction. Hochman said it is likely he will ask prosecutors to take Murillo to trial a second time, though a final decision has not been made.

This year, Hochman will have to weigh in on a pair of politically charged police killings.

Keith Porter Jr., a 43-year-old father of two, was shot to death by an off-duty U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on New Year’s Eve, a case that has gained national attention following outcry over on-duty shootings by ICE officers in Minnesota and elsewhere.

The Department of Homeland Security said the off-duty ICE agent was responding to an “active shooter.” Porter’s family has said he was firing a rifle into the air as a celebration to ring in the new year.

Melina Abdullah, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter L.A., was part of a group that met with Hochman about Porter’s killing and other cases last month in South L.A.

She described the encounter as confrontational — and a disaster.

“I don’t know how we can expect any safety and accountability with this man in office,” Abdullah said.

Hochman must also decide how to proceed with the case of Clifford Proctor, a former LAPD officer charged for shooting an unarmed homeless man in the back in 2015.

Proctor left the LAPD in 2017 and was not indicted on murder charges until 2024. Gascón reopened the case in 2021, after prosecutors previously declined to file charges.

On Monday, The Times revealed Proctor was able to fly overseas and live at home for a year without the district attorney’s office making any attempt to arrest him on an active murder warrant in 2025.

Hochman has not said if he intends to take Proctor to trial.

Hochman said that while he knows cases of police violence drive emotional reactions, he has to constrain himself to a cold analysis of the facts in front of him.

Reflecting on his confrontational meeting with Black Lives Matter activists, which centered on his recent move to dismiss charges in the 2018 killing of Christopher Deandre Mitchell by Torrance police officers, Hochman said he can’t pursue cases just because people are upset.

“They couldn’t point out anything in that analysis that they disagreed with,” he said. “Other than the result.”

The defense ministry said Friday it has relieved Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Kang Dong-gil from duty over his alleged involvement in former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s botched martial law bid in late 2024.

The move came a day after the ministry took a similar action against Ground Operations Commander Gen. Joo Sung-un over suspicions of martial law involvement, marking the second such suspension of a four-star general appointed under President Lee Jae Myung’s administration.

“The defense ministry excluded the chief of naval operations as of Friday as allegations in relation to the insurrection case have been identified,” ministry spokesperson Chung Binna said in a briefing.

Kang, who served as chief of the directorate of military support at the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time of the martial law imposition, was among the seven top-brass officers appointed as four-star generals in September last year.

The allegations involving Kang and Joo were not previously verified ahead of their appointment, a ministry official said, acknowledging limitations in the procedure amid efforts to fill the leadership vacuum caused by the martial law bid.

The official said the ministry continues to firmly carry out measures to determine the circumstances surrounding the martial law imposition, regardless of the ranks of personnel involved.

The deputy chief of the Navy will serve as acting Navy chief following Friday’s decision, the ministry said, adding disciplinary action will be considered for Kang.

On Thursday, the ministry said it has identified around 180 personnel as having been involved in the martial law imposition following a monthslong probe into about 860 general-level and field-grade officers.

It also concluded that some 1,600 personnel across the military affiliated with the Army, counterintelligence command, special operations command and Defense Intelligence Command were found to have been mobilized on the night of the martial law imposition.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

With astonishing speed amid so many postponed emergencies, the reform of the Organic Law on Hydrocarbons, enacted in 2006 by President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, has been approved. Amending the work of such a towering figure requires prudence and restraint. Let us examine the result.

First of all, what stands out is the unconstitutional attempt to repeal Article 151 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic through Article 8 of a simple law, which proposes:

Article 8. Any doubts or disputes of any nature that may arise in connection with the activities covered by this Law and that cannot be resolved amicably by the parties may be decided by the competent courts of the Republic or through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation and independent arbitration.

This article directly contradicts Article 151 of the Venezuelan Constitution:

Article 151. In the public interest contracts, unless inapplicable by reason of the nature of such contracts, a clause shall be deemed included even if not expressed, whereby any doubts and controversies which may raise concerning such contracts and which cannot be resolved amicably by the contracting parties, shall be decided by the competent courts of the Republic, in accordance with its laws and shall not on any grounds or for any reason give rise to foreign claims.

There is no doubt that the Constitution of the Republic is the Supreme Law of the Nation and therefore cannot be repealed by a lesser legal norm. Contracts on hydrocarbons are in the public interest, as Article 12 of our Constitution considers them to be “public domain assets”:

Article 12. Mineral and hydrocarbon deposits of any nature that exist within the territory of the nation, beneath the territorial sea bed, within the exclusive economic zone and on the continental sheaf, are the property of the Republic, are of public domain, and therefore inalienable and not transferable. The seacoasts are public domain property.

Articles 103, 126, paragraph 12, and 136, paragraphs 8 and 10, as well as Article 156, paragraphs 12 and 16 of the Constitution assign the same classification of public interest and public domain to mines and hydrocarbons.

This is a harmonious development of what Article 1 of our Constitution considers “Fundamental Principles”: immunity, the sovereign power not to be subject to foreign courts or jurisdictional bodies to decide disputes of internal public interest: “The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is irrevocably free and independent, basing its moral property and values of freedom, equality, justice and international peace on the doctrine of Simón Bolívar, the Liberator. Independence, liberty, sovereignty, immunity, territorial integrity and national self-determination are unrenounceable rights of the Nation.”

These are not mere abstract principles. Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a political body to make its own laws, enforce them, and resolve for itself any disputes that may arise from their application. A state that loses any of these powers ceases to be sovereign and independent. This is what happens when we agree to resolve disputes over internal public interest issues not through our courts and laws, but “through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation and independent arbitration.” Precisely because we handed over the resolution of the dispute concerning our sovereignty over Guayana Esequiba to “independent arbitration” [in 1899], that territory was taken from us.

Venezuela has systematically lost almost all disputes on matters of public interest brought before foreign bodies, which is why we withdrew from the infamous ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, part of the World Bank) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR, part of the OAS).

In short, if we allow external courts to decide on matters of public interest, how can we oppose foreign courts also judging our legitimate President Nicolás Maduro Moros and his wife, Congresswoman Cilia Flores, according to foreign laws?

The law we are examining includes numerous other objectionable proposals. Among them, Article 34 establishes that the creation of joint ventures and their operating conditions require only the mere “notification” of the National Assembly, which has no decision-making powers in matters so fundamental to the interests of the nation.

Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40 [of the reform] progressively grant joint ventures and minority partners authority for the extraction, management, and commercialization of hydrocarbons, which Article 302 of our Constitution reserves for the Republic:

Article 302. The State reserves to itself, through the pertinent organic law, and for reasons of national expediency, the petroleum industry and other industries, operations and goods and services which are in the public interest and of a strategic nature. The State shall promote the domestic manufacture of raw materials deriving from the exploitation of nonrenewable natural resources, with a view to assimilating, creating and inventing technologies, generating employment and economic growth and creating wealth and wellbeing for the people.

Article 41 of the aforementioned law authorizes private companies to carry out the “integrated management” of exploitation, receiving crude oil as payment, which displaces PDVSA and the State from their decisive functions in the industry, as set forth in the aforementioned Article 302 of our Constitution.

Article 52 of the recently approved reform empowers the executive branch to reduce the amount of royalties at will when it is demonstrated “to its satisfaction” that the project’s economic needs justify it. It should be noted that the previous [2006] law allowed the nation to receive between 60% and 65% in royalties and taxes, while the provisions of the recently amended law allow multinationals to reduce this contribution to below 15%, depending on the category of assets and activity. This represents a significant reduction in public revenue from this source of up to 50% in favor of private operators, almost all of which are foreign.

Article 56 of the recently amended law defines a 15% “integrated hydrocarbon tax” but the executive is also allowed to reduce it at its discretion. Ultimately the national fiscal share can go down from 65% to 25%.

On the sensitive issue of royalties, Andrés Giuseppe noted in a study dated January 28, 2026 (Poli-data.com): 

This report thoroughly analyzes the premise that royalties, as compensation for the depletion of a non-renewable asset, should be inalienable and non-negotiable, and argues that any incentives for the industry should be limited to the scope of taxes on profits and not to the owner’s gross share. (…) The transition from the current legal framework to the 2026 proposal represents a significant change in the protection of oil revenues. While the [2006] law strictly limits the conditions under which payments to the State can be reduced, the reform expands the discretion of the National Executive. The 2026 reform introduces greater flexibility that, in practice, weakens the concept of royalties as a “floor” for state participation. Under the 2006 law, the reduction to 20% was restricted to specific fields with proven geological difficulties; in contrast, the new Article 52 allows the National Executive to reduce the royalty at its discretion for any project, provided that the lack of economic viability is demonstrated “to its satisfaction” (,,,) The oil royalty, historically linked to jus regale, represents the compensation that the exploiter of a non-renewable natural resource owes to the State for the right to extract and appropriate an asset that belongs to the public domain. In Venezuelan doctrine, this concept is based on Article 12 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which establishes that hydrocarbon deposits are public property, inalienable, and imprescriptible.

The royalty, therefore, is non-negotiable and cannot be diverted from its spirit, purpose, and rationale to satisfy other legal obligations arising from different causes and motivations. Furthermore, the Organic Law on National Public Finance establishes: “Article 5. Under no circumstances is compensation against the Treasury admissible, regardless of the origin and nature of the credits to be compensated.” 

Compensation is an institution of private law whereby an individual can extinguish a debt with another individual by offsetting it against a debt that he or she has with that individual. As we can see, the Organic Law on National Public Finance itself, which has specific jurisdiction in tax matters, categorically prohibits it, which means that a citizen cannot cancel the payment of royalties on the grounds that he or she used that debt to satisfy another obligation.

In summary, numerous provisions of the recently reformed Organic Law on Hydrocarbons tend to diminish the Republic’s exclusive jurisdiction over hydrocarbon exploitation, enabling a gradual privatization of the industry. Other provisions make significant reductions in public revenue dependent on the discretion of officials, which do not take into account the real value of the hydrocarbons extracted but rather the alleged economic situation of the private company involved in the project. The overal result will be to significantly reduce the revenue generated by these resources, jeopardizing the financial management of state oil company PDVSA and that of the Republic itself.

Translated and with minor edits by Venezuelanalysis.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Luis Britto García

If you get caught out with this travel essential, it could cost you hundreds of pounds

If you’re jetting off to Italy this summer, it’s vital to familiarise yourself with the local regulations. There’s a lesser-known rule that applies to both residents and tourists, though it’s far more likely to trip up visitors.

This is because it concerns something most holidaymakers habitually carry — a water bottle. On the Italian island of Capri in the Gulf of Naples, single-use plastics have been banned.

With approximately 2.7 million tourists visiting annually, it was essential to mitigate the environmental impact of this influx, reports the Express.

This means plastic bags, bottles, straws and cutlery are forbidden on the island. Despite the ban being enforced for several years, specialists at John Mason International Movers report it continues to surprise people regularly.

Executive director Simon Hood said: “The island’s authorities are becoming increasingly worried about the effects of the growing tourism numbers on the local population and environment.”

“In 2019, a ban on single-use plastics came into force, banning plastic bags, cups, utensils, water bottles, straws and even coffee stirrers. Authorities have been empowered to fine those caught swigging from a plastic bottle up to €500 [around £435] – it may seem excessive, but it is well intentioned.”

He noted that the restriction frequently surprises visitors, as they don’t anticipate it.

Simon explained: “Capri isn’t a municipality historically recognised for environmental work. The long-standing association of the island being a hotspot with movie stars, A-list celebs, and influencers has traditionally meant many of these concerns were ignored but mass tourism has seen changes come thick and fast in recent years.”

The rule primarily targets bars and restaurants, though the bulk of Capri’s tourism arrives as daytrippers travelling by ferry from Naples. These visitors are highly likely to bring single-use plastic water bottles with them, which is precisely how they fall foul of the rules.

Simon stated: “It’s something that would catch me out; the ban aimed at bars and restaurants has influenced what can be bought and sold locally. But for the day trippers, the likelihood you’ll bring a non-biodegradable plastic bottle on your trip is high.

“Considering this, I’d say think twice and consider whether you want to run the risk of receiving a €500 fine.”

Joined by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuses, US Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to end the federal statute of limitations that has shielded sex traffickers. It’s named for Virginia Giuffre, one of the late sex offender’s most prominent accusers.

Mérida, February 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has launched discussions on a preliminarily-approved “Amnesty Bill for Democratic Coexistence,” including public consultations with community peace judges, NGOs and academics. 

Deputy Jorge Arreaza, who heads the parliament’s special commission for the amnesty bill, said that the legislature’s intention was to shape the law as a mechanism to ensure political stability in Venezuela but without impunity.

“The goal of this law is to contribute to peace, democratic coexistence and national reconciliation,” he explained during a meeting with community peace judges on Sunday. “It is a necessity of the new political moment we are going through.” Arreaza had previously served as Foreign Minister and Communes Minister.

The National Assembly commission’s consultations included a meeting with NGOs such as Provea, Foro Penal, and Acceso a la Justicia on Saturday. One they earlier, the legislators hosted deans from sixteen public and private university law schools to receive their input on the project. 

During these meetings, Arreaza stressed the importance of community justice participation, civil society organisations and academia. 

“We went to the law, reviewed each of the contributions, and will conduct an evaluation. We must contribute to the dialogue; we must listen to each other with patience and empathy,” he emphasized.

The Amnesty Bill for Democratic Coexistence, first announced by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez on January 30, was approved in its first reading on Thursday. A revised text is expected to be submitted to a final vote in the coming weeks.

The central stated objective of the initiative is national reconciliation and social peace through the pardon of political and related crimes committed between January 1, 1999, and January 30, 2026. 

According to Venezuelan authorities, the project aims to address the political conflict that occurred between 1999 and 2026 by channelling differences through constitutional means, as well as modernise the legal system to help secure social peace.

The bill’s Article 6 explains that the selected period covers significant conflicts such as the 2002 coup d’État, the 2002-03 oil lockout and opposition-led violent street protests in 2013, 2014 and 2017.

However, the bill sets strict limits, excluding those responsible for serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, homicide, drug trafficking, and corruption from any benefits. In addition to the release of those who have been prosecuted or convicted, the law establishes the termination of legal proceedings and the removal of criminal records from police and military files for those who benefit from it.

The Venezuelan government’s consultations likewise included a meeting between Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and former Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in Caracas on Friday. Zapatero, who has mediated past dialogue initiatives with the Venezuelan opposition, expressed his support for the Amnesty Bill, considering that it will mark “a turning point” for the country’s future and reconciliation.

He emphasized that the amnesty should be as extensive as possible and implemented swiftly to meet the expectations of families affected by arrests. Zapatero pledged to assist in any requested way, arguing that forgiveness and dialogue are essential elements in what he described as an “extraordinary moment” for the Caribbean nation.

Amid amnesty debates, the Committee of Family and Friends for the Freedom of Imprisoned Workers demanded that the legislation extend to imprisoned workers who have been criminalized on charges of ‘terrorism’ and ‘treason’ for defending labor rights or speaking out against corruption.

In a statement, the committee argued that the amnesty should not be limited to high-profile political figures, but rather apply to working-class and grassroots activists as well. 

Investigative blog La Tabla also put forward a proposal to expand the removal of charges and convictions to campesino leaders who have been targeted amid ongoing land struggles. In recent years, rural organizations have denounced a growing criminalization of local activists, accusing judicial authorities of favoring landowning interests.

Releases of high-profile opposition figures continue

In recent days, Venezuelan judicial authorities have continued a process of prisoner releases which, according to the President of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, are intended to promote national reconciliation. The Venezuelan government has reported around 900 releases since December.

Rodríguez recently announced that further detainees would be released this week, describing the process as an “act of justice and forgiveness.” The people released are still facing trial, with charges against high-profile anti-government figures including “terrorism” and “treason.”

NGO Foro Penal reported the release of dozens of opposition politicians on Sunday, including several associates of far-right leader María Corina Machado. However, hours after exiting prison, former Deputy Juan Pablo Guanipa was arrested again in Caracas.

The Venezuelan Attorney General’s Office published a statement arguing that Guanipa had violated the conditions of his release, though it did not offer specifics, and requesting a court order to move him to house arrest.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Feb. 7 (Asia Today) — A presiding judge at the Changwon District Court has been summarily indicted on suspicion of violating South Korea’s anti-graft law, prosecutors said Friday, days after he issued acquittals in a high-profile political funding case.

Legal sources said the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office filed a summary indictment against Judge Kim In-taek on Wednesday for alleged violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Kim is accused of receiving luxury clothing worth several million won (several thousand dollars) last year from a duty-free shop employee identified only as a team leader surnamed A at HDC Shilla Duty Free. Prosecutors are also examining allegations that the employee covered expenses for an overseas trip taken with Kim.

Under the anti-graft law, public officials including judges who receive valuables exceeding 1 million won (about $681) in a single instance can face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won (about $20,438).

On Thursday, Kim acquitted political broker Myung Tae-gyun and former People Power Party lawmaker Kim Young-sun of charges related to alleged political funding violations, ruling that money exchanged between them did not constitute political funds, according to the report. In the same case, the court convicted Myung of inducing the concealment of evidence and sentenced him to six months in prison, suspended for one year.

Kim is scheduled to transfer to the Suwon District Court on Feb. 23 under the judiciary’s regular personnel rotation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260207010002588

Mustafa Barghouti, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, said that the steadfastness of Palestinians in Gaza despite genocide, shows ‘the failure of Israel’. Barghouti is at the Al Jazeera Forum, an event focusing on geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.

SUNSEEKERS heading to Hawaii must now shell out more money to cover a tourist tax hike.

Government officials have praised it as a new “green fee,” but opponents have slammed it as a “surf tax” which bumps up accommodation prices.

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation last May to generate an estimated nearly $100 million annually.

The “green fee” adds about $3 per night to your bill if you’re booking a $400-per-night hotel room, according to Aloha Hawaiian Vacations.

“Some are praising it as a much-needed environmental investment,” it added.

“Others feel like it’s just another added cost at a time when tourism still hasn’t fully bounced back post-pandemic.”

Forbes described it last month as a “first-of-its-kind visitor levy in the United States aimed at funding climate resilience and environmental conservation in the state.”

The levy raises rates on hotel room, vacation rentals and short-term rental stays.

The government also wanted to charge cruise line passengers, but the new charge is being challenged by industry officials in a lawsuit.

Money raised through the tax is to be invested in climate disaster resilience and environmental protection, according to the government.

“Visitors are willing to pay a climate impact fee in order to support Hawaiʻi’s environmental protection efforts and preserve the beauty and cultural heritage of the islands for future generations,” it explained last May.

SURF TAX

But, some tourists have resisted what they’re calling a “surf tax” said the Robb Report.

There’s also been some negative comments on social media, where it’s been slammed as a “money making” venture, and a “disgusting cash grab” which will “make Hawaii even more unaffordable.”

“We have no emissions testing on cars in Hawaii, but now we’re suddenly concerned about pollution and are going to place a climate tax on tourists?” asked one resident.

“This is about greed and incompetence, not the environment.”

Hawaii does not require a mandatory tailpipe emissions test – also known as a “smog check,” for vehicle registration, said Engineer Fix.

“Unlike many states that quantify pollutants like hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, Hawaii does not perform this type of performance-based assessment.”

Visitors have been charged the new levy since January 1, after it was signed into law last May.

The tax was prompted by recent natural disasters, including the 2023 Maui wildfires that killed more than 100 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

It raises the state’s transient accommodations tax (TAT) by 0.75% for a total of 11% placed upon the nightly lodging rate, said the governor last May.

Prior to its approval, officials had signaled hopes to slug tourists $40 to raise “$200 million in conservation workforce revenue.”

However Senate Bill 1396 instead increased the TAT rate by a more modest 0.75% – rather than a higher fee.

Supporters are thrilled that money raised will be spent on projects such as replenishing beach sand, coral reef rehabilitation, plus fire prevention projects.

“As an island chain, Hawaii cannot wait for the next disaster to hit before taking action,” said Gov. Green last June.

“We must build resiliency now, and the green fee will provide the necessary financing to ensure resources are available for our future.”

The cruise ship industry has managed to avoid the fee – for now.

An 11th-hour reprieve was granted by the federal appellate court, reported Civil Beat on January 1.

“Judges upheld the cruise industry’s request that its ships not have to pay the new fee while in port — or to pay any of the visitor taxes already charged to hotels and vacation rental owners — while the battle over their inclusion plays out in court.

“That means Hawaii will see a 10% decrease in expected revenue from the nation’s first green fee while the injunction is in effect.

“That reduction would become permanent if the industry’s main trade group, Cruise Lines International Association, prevails in court.”

Leading Democrats have rolled out a new and unvarnished message — that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot be trusted.

“Let’s be really clear: We can’t trust anything the DOJ does. The DOJ is corrupt. They’re corrupt on every major issue in front of this country,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said Friday at a news conference in his district.

“We cannot trust the Department of Justice. They are an illegitimate organization right now under the leadership of [Atty. Gen.] Pam Bondi and the direction of Donald Trump,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said during his own news conference in Washington, D.C.

The remarks — which hold profound implications in a two-party democracy meant to be protected and served by a nonpartisan justice system, and which a White House spokesperson called “shameful” — followed a week of equally stunning actions by the Justice Department, where President Trump has installed staunch loyalists, including Bondi, to high-ranking positions.

In recent days, the Justice Department has resisted launching civil rights investigations into two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents. It has since reversed course and launched such an investigation into the second of those incidents, in which 37-year-old Alex Pretti was shot while surrounded by agents, on the ground and disarmed, but has held firm in its decision not to investigate the earlier shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, who was shot while trying to drive away from a tense exchange with agents.

On Wednesday, the FBI raided and seized voter ballots and other information from the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga., long a target of Trump’s baseless and disproven claims that widespread voter fraud helped Democrats steal the 2020 election. Bondi was an early backer of those baseless claims, as were other Justice Department appointees.

On Friday, federal agents arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon and other journalists after their coverage of a protest at a conservative church in Minneapolis. Justice Department officials rejected the defense that Lemon and the other journalists were exercising their 1st Amendment rights as journalists, and accused them of violating the rights of churchgoers.

Also Friday, Justice Department officials released more documents from the Epstein files — a trove of records related to the sexual abuse of minors by the late, disgraced billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats argued that the release was still not complete, in violation of a law passed by Congress mandating that they be made public.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly dismissed Jeffries’ and Garcia’s remarks as “shameful comments by Democrats who cheered on Joe Biden’s weaponization of the Department of Justice against his political enemies, including President Trump,” and said Trump, Bondi and other administration officials “have quickly Made America Safe Again by taking violent criminals off the streets, cracking down on fraud, holding bad actors accountable, and more.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment, but officials there have broadly defended the department’s actions as not only justified but necessary for ensuring the rule of law and holding alleged criminals to account.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said both the actions of the Justice Department and the latest statements from Democrats ratcheted up the stakes in the nation’s already tense political standoff — as institutions such as the Justice Department “need to be trusted in the long term” for American democracy to be successful.

“Trust goes up and down in the people in institutions over history, but there’s been a baseline level of support for our Constitution, the way our government is built, and the seal on the building — even if people didn’t trust who was in that building,” Kousser said. “What we may be risking as a country is losing the trust in the building itself, if people think that the might of the federal government is being used to pursue a narrow agenda of one party or one leader.”

Jeffries’ assertion that the Justice Department can’t be trusted came as he denounced Lemon’s arrest. Jeffries said there was “zero basis to arrest” Lemon, and that the arrest was an attempt by the Trump administration to weaponize government against people they disagree with.

Jeffries added that distrust in the federal agency is one of the reasons why House Democrats are pushing for legislative action to require independent investigations by local and state law enforcement in cases when federal agents engage in violent incidents and are accused of wrongdoing — such as the shootings in Minneapolis.

Other leading Democrats have also slammed the Justice Department over the journalists’ arrests.

“The American people deserve answers as to why Trump’s lawless Justice Department is arresting journalists for simply doing their jobs,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

“The arrest of journalists for covering a protest is a grave attack on the 1st Amendment and freedom of the press,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “And proof the Trump administration is not de-escalating.”

Garcia’s comments came in a wide-ranging news conference at which he also discussed taking on a leading role in impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who has been overseeing the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts, including through the deployment of Immigration and Custom Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis, Los Angeles and other major cities.

Garcia denounced the Trump administration’s handling of the Good and Pretti shootings, arguing that independent investigations were needed — as he said were conducted after police shootings in Long Beach when he was mayor there.

“They should bring in either a special counsel [or] some type of special master to oversee an independent investigation,” he said.

He said that was especially necessary given the fact that Noem and other administration officials immediately bad-mouthed Good and Pretti as violent actors threatening agents before any of the facts were gathered — and in direct contradiction to video evidence from the scenes.

“What happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretti was murder by our own government, and our committee is working right now on a major report on both of those incidents so that those that are responsible are held accountable,” Garcia said.

He also called Lemon’s arrest “horrifying,” saying Lemon was “out there reporting” and is now being “essentially attacked” by the Justice Department. “The arrest of Don Lemon might be the single largest attack on the free press and the 1st Amendment in the modern era.”

Garcia noted that the Justice Department had first shopped Lemon’s arrest around to multiple judges, who denied issuing a warrant for his arrest. Administration officials said a federal grand jury handed down an indictment for the journalist, but Garcia suggested the indictment was fraudulently obtained based on the government putting forward information “we cannot trust.”

Decisions around the two Minneapolis shootings and the arrest of the journalists would have passed through the office of Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Dhillon did not respond to a request for comment Friday. However, she has broadly defended her office’s actions online. For days before Lemon’s arrest, she had slammed his actions, writing on X that she and Bondi “will not tolerate harassment of Americans at worship — especially from agitators posing as ‘journalists.’”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche — a former personal attorney to Trump — has broadly defended the department’s actions in Minneapolis, where he said a civil rights investigation into Good’s shooting was unwarranted, and on the Epstein files, which he said have been released in accordance with the law and Trump’s own demands for transparency.

The latter was also something Garcia took issue with Friday, slamming the Justice Department for continuing to withhold some of the files.

“Donald Trump and the Department of Justice just made it clear right now that they intend to withhold approximately 50% or half of the Epstein files while claiming to have fully complied with the law. This is outrageous and incredibly concerning,” Garcia said.

He said his committee subpoenaed all of the files over the summer, and Bondi has yet to comply with that subpoena in violation of the law.

Previously released Epstein records included allegations that Trump was involved in Epstein’s schemes to abuse young women and girls, which Trump — once a friend of Epstein’s — has strenuously denied.

The Justice Department has also taken the unusual step of defending the president in the matter directly, including by releasing a statement last month that the released documents “contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump.”

“To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already,” the department’s statement said.

Kousser, the politics professor, noted that this is not the first time that concerns about partisanship within the Justice Department have been voiced. He said similar concerns were raised by many Republicans when the Justice Department was prosecuting Trump during the Biden administration.

Such arguments raise serious alarms, he said, regardless of which way they are directed politically.

“If people feel like the Justice Department is only doing the bidding of whoever won the last election, that moves it from a law enforcement body to a political operation in the eyes of average Americans,” he said. “And that would be a huge loss for our democracy.”

Jan. 30 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s Innovation Party said Thursday that the Constitutional Court’s decision striking down the 3% vote threshold for proportional representation is a warning to the country’s two major parties and called on the Democratic Party to amend the Public Official Election Act.

The party argued that the ruling requires broader electoral reform, including abolishing two-member local council districts, expanding regional proportional representation and introducing runoff voting for mayors and governors.

Park Byeong-won, interim spokesperson for the Innovation Party, told a news conference at the National Assembly Communication Center that the court’s decision underscored violations of popular sovereignty. He said the Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the National Assembly, should take responsibility for revising the election law.

Park said the court found partially unconstitutional a provision of the Public Official Election Act that denied proportional representation seats to parties that failed to secure at least 3% of the nationwide vote. As a result, he said, parties receiving less than 3% support will be eligible for seat allocation in the 2028 general election without further legislation.

He added that the court criticized the current system as favoring the two major parties and blocking new political forces from entering the National Assembly. Park said it would be unrealistic to expect the major parties to voluntarily reform a system that benefits them and called the ruling a rebuke that lawmakers must heed.

Park said the decision highlighted the need to abolish two-member local council districts, expand regional proportional representation and introduce runoff voting for local chief executives in upcoming local elections. He said the Democratic Party should move unilaterally to amend the election law to reflect the principle of popular sovereignty.

On Wednesday, the Constitutional Court ruled 7-2 that Article 189(1) of the Public Official Election Act was unconstitutional. The provision limited proportional representation seats to parties that won at least 3% of the national vote or secured five constituency seats.

Minor parties and candidates who failed to meet the threshold in the 21st and 22nd general elections under a semi-linked proportional representation system had filed the constitutional complaint.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260130010013892

The Los Angeles City Council has again increased what it will pay Gibson Dunn to represent it in a contentious homelessness case, bringing the law firm’s contract to nearly $7.5 million.

In mid-May, the council approved a three-year contract capped at $900,000. The law firm then billed the city $1.8 million for two weeks of legal work, with 15 of its attorneys charging nearly $1,300 per hour.

In a closed-door meeting Wednesday, the council voted 9-4 to approve an increase of about $1.8 million from the current $5.7 million, with Councilmembers John Lee, Tim McOsker, Imelda Padilla and Monica Rodriguez opposed. It was not clear why the additional money was needed.

Rodriguez said that spending resources on outside lawyers instead of complying with the settlement terms in the case is “simply a waste of public funds.”

“In the face of a mounting homelessness crisis, it’s misguided for the City to continue pouring our scarce resources into outside counsel instead of housing the most vulnerable Angelenos,” Rodriguez said in a statement.

The contract “has expanded significantly beyond its original scope,” Lee said in a statement, later adding, “I believe the Council has a duty to demand transparency and closely scrutinize costs.”

The L.A. city attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The city reached a settlement with the nonprofit LA Alliance in 2022, agreeing to create 12,915 homeless shelter beds or other housing opportunities, while also clearing thousands of encampments.

Since then, the LA Alliance has repeatedly accused the city of failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city a week before a federal judge called a seven-day hearing to determine whether he should take authority over the city’s homelessness programs from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council. Alliance lawyers said during those proceedings that they wanted Bass and two council members to testify.

The judge later declined to put Los Angeles’ homelessness programs into receivership, even as he concluded that the city failed to adhere to the settlement.

Theane Evangelis, a Gibson Dunn attorney who led the firm’s LA Alliance team, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has praised Gibson Dunn’s work in the LA Alliance case, saying the firm helped the city retain control over its homelessness programs while also keeping Bass and the two council members off the stand.

She commended the firm — which secured a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upheld laws prohibiting homeless people from camping in public spaces — for getting up to speed on the settlement, mastering a complex set of policy matters within a week.

Faced with lingering criticism from council members, Feldstein Soto agreed to help with the cost of the Gibson Dunn contract, committing $1 million from her office’s budget. The council has also tapped $4 million from the city’s “unappropriated balance,” an account for funds that have not yet been allocated.

On Thursday, Matthew D. Umhofer, an attorney who represents LA Alliance, called the Gibson Dunn contract increase “predictable.”

“It’s a taxpayer-funded debacle designed to help city officials avoid being held accountable for their failures on homelessness,” Umhofer said in a statement. “The amount will keep going up as long as the City is more interested in ending oversight than ending homelessness.”

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez has signed into law a reform bill that will pave the way for increased privatisation in the South American country’s nationalised oil sector, fulfilling a key demand from her United States counterpart, Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Rodriguez held a signing ceremony with a group of state oil workers. She hailed the reform as a positive step for Venezuela’s economy.

“We’re talking about the future. We are talking about the country that we are going to give to our children,” Rodriguez said.

The ceremony came within hours of the National Assembly – dominated by members of Rodriguez’s United Socialist Party – passing the reform.

“Only good things will come after the suffering,” said Jorge Rodriguez, the assembly’s head and brother of the interim president.

Since the US military’s abduction of Venezuela’s former leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3, the Trump administration has sought to pressure President Rodriguez to open the country’s oil sector to outside investment.

Trump has even warned that Rodriguez could “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro”, should she fail to comply with his demands.

Thursday’s legislation will give private firms control over the sale and production of Venezuelan oil.

It would also require legal disputes to be resolved outside of Venezuelan courts, a change long sought by foreign companies, who argue that the judicial system in the country is dominated by the ruling socialist party.

The bill would also cap royalties collected by the government at 30 percent.

While Rodriguez signed the reform law, the Trump administration simultaneously announced it would loosen some sanctions restricting the sale of Venezuelan oil.

The Department of the Treasury said it would allow limited transactions by the country’s government and the state oil company PDVSA that were “necessary to the lifting, exportation, reexportation, sale, resale, supply, storage, marketing, purchase, delivery, or transportation of Venezuelan-origin oil, including the refining of such oil, by an established US entity”.

Previously, all of Venezuela’s oil sector was subject to sweeping US sanctions imposed in 2019, under Trump’s first term as president.

Thursday’s suite of changes is designed to make Venezuela’s oil market more appealing to outside petroleum firms, many of whom remain wary of investing in the country.

Under Maduro, Venezuela experienced waves of political repression and economic instability, and much of his government remains intact, though Maduro himself is currently awaiting trial in a New York prison.

His abduction resulted in dozens of deaths, and critics have accused the US of violating Venezuelan sovereignty.

Venezuela nationalised its oil sector in the 1970s, and in 2007, Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, pushed the government to increase its control and expropriate foreign-held assets.

Following Maduro’s abduction, Trump administration officials have said that the US will decide to whom and under what conditions Venezuelan oil is sold, with proceeds deposited into a US-controlled bank account.

Concerns about the legality of such measures or the sovereignty of Venezuela have been waved aside by Trump and his allies, who previously asserted that Venezuelan oil should “belong” to the US.

KATIE PRICE’S new mother in law has broken her silence on the star’s secret marriage to her son.

The former glamour model announced her engagement to Lee Andrews on Friday before the pair tied the knot in a shock ceremony in Dubai.

Now Lee’s mum Trisha has spoken out for the first time and revealed she knew the two were going to be getting hitched.

The clairvoyant from Nottingham told the Mirror: “As long as they are happy I am happy.

“There’s a lot of lies going around about Lee and that’s made me really upset. He’s not been married twice. I just want to defend my son, but I can’t say much more until I know everything.

“He did tell me that the wedding was happening. He spoke to me and if he is happy, I am happy – he’s my son, and that’s all that matters.”

LEE’S REAL LOOK

Shock pics reveal what Katie Price’s new man REALLY looks like

LOVER LEE

Katie Price’s husband’s ex wife pictured – as two past marriages are revealed

Speaking about her new famous daughter-in-law, Trisha continued: “Of course, I know who Katie is.

“I’ve always been very neutral about her. Everyone deserves a chance, you should never judge anyone in life.”

She joked: “You can ask what it’s like to have a famous daughter-in-law, but she’s got a famous mother-in-law!”

On Friday, the reality star took to her Instagram stories to share a series of engagement pictures, sending fans into a frenzy.

In one photo, the mum-of-five was seen standing beside rose petals that were arranged to read ‘will you marry me’ before she showcased her huge diamond engagement ring.

However, just 48 hours later, she announced the pair had tied the knot in a quickie ceremony in Dubai, a move which has reportedly left her closest family and friends shocked.

In the pictures, the 47-year-old was seen beaming from ear to ear and locking lips with her new husband shortly after the ceremony.

Katie was seen in a cut-out, white bodycon dress while Lee wore white linen trousers and a taupe shirt.

The leggy dress displayed the reality TV legend’s toned abs and tattoos as she showed off her huge diamond ring.

The Sun understands Katie’s family were not aware of the wedding taking place and were not given prior warning it was happening.

An onlooker said: “Katie and Lee had no one with them when they got married. It was just the two of them.

“Katie couldn’t stop smiling, she seemed so taken with Lee. They said their vows and then kissed, it was sweet to watch.”

An officiator was seen in front of the pair reading from a script as they stood together in the sunshine saying their vows.

A family friend added: “Kate’s family are dumbstruck. To see she had got engaged after flying to Dubai – literally just after she had arrived was crazy.

“The fact she has now married him the following day is even more shocking.”

“No one knows who Lee is, they know nothing about him. Kate’s mum, her children, no one knew about the wedding.

“She has a lot of questions to answer when she comes home.”

The Sun understands Katie and Lee met just over a week ago.

They were introduced on social media and spent time talking before Lee invited Katie to fly out to Dubai to meet him.

He put on an extravagant proposal, with Katie branding him her “Richard Gere”.