lawyer

WASHINGTON — President Clinton consulted congressional leaders Wednesday on his policy toward Bosnia but continued to avoid a firm commitment to seek congressional approval before deciding to send American forces there.

The 1973 War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress in most cases before sending troops into areas of potential hostilities and requires that the troops be withdrawn within 60 days if Congress does not authorize their presence.

The law was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto. Each successive Administration has argued that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s powers as commander in chief.

During the last 12 years of Republican administrations, Democrats in Congress have made a major issue of support for the War Powers Act. That puts Clinton and his aides in a potentially difficult situation, which they have tried to avoid by evading questions about precisely where they stand.

Clinton continued that approach Wednesday. “Ask my lawyer, I don’t play lawyer,” he said when asked at a White House photo session whether he believes the law is constitutional. “I think it’s worked reasonably well.”

Later, White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos said: “The President is reviewing the War Powers Act at this time. That is under review by the National Security Council and the counsel’s office.”

White House aides have fallen back on carefully worded pledges to consult with Congress in a manner that is “consistent with” the war powers law but not necessarily “pursuant to” it. Once Clinton decides on a course of action, he “will go to the Congress if it is required,” Stephanopoulos said.

President George Bush followed a somewhat similar path before the Persian Gulf War. Bush argued that he did not need congressional authorization before sending troops to the Gulf but urged Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq before the actual war began. Bush insisted, however, that he had the power to go ahead with the attack if Congress voted against him.

Clinton’s less clear-cut position appears to be acceptable to congressional leaders.

Although members of Congress have often touted the War Powers Act as an important safeguard against unbridled executive power, few over the last 20 years have relished the prospect of using it.

One indication of the weakness of the law came in the House on Wednesday when it finally got around to approving a resolution authorizing the sending of U.S. troops to Somalia. The authorization came five months after the troops were dispatched and the day after U.S. forces turned over control of the relief effort to the United Nations.

At a ceremony at the White House to honor troops returning from the African nation, Clinton linked their experiences with the events that may soon unfold in the former Yugoslav republics.

“Your successful return reminds us that other missions lie ahead for our nation,” he said. “You have proved again that our involvement in multilateral operations need not be open-ended or ill-defined, that we can go abroad and accomplish some distinct objectives and then come home again when the mission is accomplished.”

At a later White House ceremony, where he talked about the importance of rapid action on health care reform, Clinton defended his Administration against the charge that monitoring developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina has interfered with his other activities and that it has tried to do too many things at once.

“One of the most challenging things we have to do in this city at this time is to break a mind-set that we have one problem at a time and we’ll get on it and we’ll only think about that,” Clinton said.

The actress has a brand new ‘collab’ – playing a solicitor in Jeff Pope’s hard-hitting factual drama about the horrific sex attacks of John Worboys

She’s best known for her role as smiley Anne in Amandaland – but Philippa Dunne is taking an altogether more serious role in ITV’s new true crime drama about black cab rapist John Worboys.

Believe Me tells the story of how the victims of one of the most prolific sex attackers in British history fought back after being failed by the system. And Philippa, 44, plays the solicitor who represents three of the women, who decide to sue the Metropolitan Police under the Human Rights Act for their failure to properly conduct investigations into their allegations of sexual assault.

Worboys, played by Daniel Mays, preyed on women under the cover of being a “respectable” licensed taxi-cab driver. He would target solo women to pick up, claim he’d had a win at a casino or on the lottery, then offer them a drug-laced glass of champagne to help him celebrate – which would knock them out. The women often had little or no memory of what had happened to them.

READ MORE: Sir David Attenborough reveals astonishing secrets behind mountain gorilla scenesREAD MORE: Channel 4’s Virgin Island has ‘more sex’ second time around, with two couples forming

The drama, to air on ITV next month, focuses on Sarah (Aimée-Ffion Edwards) and Laila (Aasiya Shah), who reported sexual assaults by Worboys but felt they had not been believed by the police.

Phillipa plays Harriet Wistrich who joins forces with the women and with barrister Phillippa Kaufmann QC to sue the police over the handling of their complaints, claiming it led to them being subjected to degrading treatment and contributing to their distress. Not only did they win, they won twice after the Met appealed that judgment all the way to the Supreme Court.

Irish comedy star Philippa she had not previously worked with writer Jeff Pope, whose credits include Little Boy Blue, Philomena and See No Evil. “I just did a couple of auditions over Zoom – auditioning is still a big part of any actor’s life,” she explained. “And it was the most dialogue I’ve ever had to learn in my life so I was glad it was on Zoom because I had post-it notes everywhere.”

Once she’d landed the role, she continued to write down some of her more complicated lines. “Because of how jargon-heavy all the legal stuff is, I had a lot of it written on the paper in front of me,” she laughed. “So if you see me doing this at any stage, I am literally reading my script in front of the camera.”

Worboys, 68, was first convicted on 19 offences in 2009 and has since been found guilty of further sexual assaults. His next parole hearing is due to be held in public in June.

Speaking about writing the drama Pope – who will next tackle Sarah Everard’s story for the BBC – said he chooses his subjects carefully. “The first thing is – does something get you angry?” he explained. “Or really affect you? With this one I spent six months of my life being angry as I was pulling it together. Then there’s a long process of meeting the people involved, particularly the three main survivors – not to use the word victims. We spent a lot of time with them – as a man I had to understand a lot of personal, difficult, unpleasant stuff that they were telling me. And just listening and listening.”

He said that what had surprised him the most was hearing from the many women in his life about what they’d had to put up with from men over the years. “I realised early in the process that there’s a whole world, and one half of the population really don’t know much about it and the other half live with it. Stuff like what women put up with just on a night out. Talking to my wife, my daughters-in-law, my sister and understanding what women go through in a normal day, it was such an education for me. I hope one half of the audience are going to go ‘yes, that’s what happens’ and the other half are going to go ‘what?’”

The drama will also feature Miriam Petche playing Carrie Symonds, now the wife of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was targeted by Worboys in her youth but had a narrow escape. When he was first being considered for parole, she was working in the Conservative Party press team and put her career on the line to spearhead a campaign pushing for a judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision.

Philippa will also return as much-loved Anne in the second series of BBC1’s Amandaland from May 6. Speaking about the new run, the actress said: “Anne is still in SoHa, juggling her high-powered job while raising her kids, attending all of Darius’s soccer matches, volunteering for activities at school while also being at the beck and call of her best pal Amanda.”

Both she and Lucy Punch, who plays Amanda, have been nominated for Best Comedy Actress at the Bafta TV Awards alonside Jennifer Saunders, who appeared in the Christmas special. Amandaland – which this time has a guest role for Call the Midwife actress Pam Ferris – has also been nominated for the Best Scripted Comedy category.

After last year’s disastrous Eaton fire, Southern California Edison executives vowed to be transparent about what caused the inferno that killed at least 19 people and left thousands of families homeless in Altadena.

“As we better understand exactly what happened on Jan. 7, we do so with a commitment to remain transparent,” Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a published statement after the fire.

In court, however, Edison is keeping crucial documents of the cause of the Eaton fire secret, a legal strategy it has used to shield what happened in at least seven earlier wildfires it was blamed for igniting, according to a Times review.

Edison’s stance has caused mounting frustration with attorneys representing fire victims who are seeking compensation for their losses.

“The Eaton Fire cases should be decided on their merits, not on what information that SCE has been able to withhold,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a recent court filing.

State regulators have repeatedly criticized Edison for its secrecy in previous fires, saying it violated safety regulations and stopped officials from learning the root cause so that similar disasters could be prevented.

For more than a year, Edison employees have been gathering detailed information about what ignited the fire in an investigation the company is required to perform under state utility regulations.

But most of that information is being withheld by Edison’s claim of attorney-client privilege, as well as a protective order that it asked a judge to approve soon after the fire.

Protective orders are commonly used in civil lawsuits, but most cases do not have the broad ramifications to the public as the Eaton fire.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, at the Semafor World Economy Summit in Washington on April 14.

(Aaron Schwartz / Bloomberg)

Because of the secrecy, it’s not possible to know just what Edison has found, attorneys for Eaton fire victims said in a filing.

In past fires, regulators have requested from the company — and been denied — photographs, notes, text messages and other records generated by the Edison crew that was first to arrive at the site where the blaze ignited. The company has argued its attorney directed the crew, making the evidence privileged.

The victims’ lawyers say Edison shouldn’t be able to withhold from them most evidence from its investigation into the blaze by claiming that the findings and related documents are covered by attorney-client privilege and therefore confidential.

In a recent interview with The Times, Pizarro disagreed that the company was keeping information on the cause of the Eaton fire secret.

“We believe we’ve been transparent,” Pizarro said. “Facts are not privileged, and so we provided facts as we have known them.”

He said the company’s investigation was continuing. “We still, to this day, don’t fully understand what happened,” he said.

Pizarro said the protective order was needed to keep many things confidential, including some not related to the fire’s cause. For example, he said, it protects maps of the electrical system, which can’t be revealed because of terrorism concerns.

Signs blaming Southern California Edison for the Eaton fire are seen near cleared lots in the Altadena area of Los Angeles County on Jan. 5.

(Josh Edelson / AFP via Getty Images)

He pointed to several company disclosures, including two letters it sent to regulators soon after the Eaton fire that said it was evaluating whether a century-old transmission line, which hadn’t carried power since 1971, “could have become energized” and helped lead to the fire.

Pizarro said last year that the possible reenergization of that old line is a leading theory of the fire’s cause.

The company has said little else about the fire’s cause, other than it safely maintained and inspected the idle line, just like it did its energized lines.

Edison faces thousands of lawsuits from victims of the fire, which burned 14,021 acres and leveled a wide swath of Altadena. The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company was negligent for failing to safely maintain its transmission lines and for leaving the idle line in place when it knew it could become energized. Edison denies the claims of the lawsuits, which have been consolidated in L.A. County Superior Court.

Some documents that Edison says are not privileged and agreed to provide to the victims’ lawyers are sealed by a protective order that the company and the plaintiffs’ lawyers requested.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys often agree to such protective orders on the theory that doing so would allow the utility to more freely share information that could help their case.

Power lines hang from towers carrying power from the Southern California Edison Gould Station.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Two months after the fire, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Laura Seigle signed the protective order — which covers documents that both sides provide in discovery — including business information deemed proprietary and personal customer data.

According to the protective order, if the case is settled, the lawyers will decide whether the sealed documents should be returned to Edison or destroyed.

If the case proceeds to trial, some of the evidence could become public.

Yet even with the protective order in place, plantiffs’ attorneys say Edison has refused to provide them with evidence from its investigation into the fire, saying it’s protected by attorney-client privilege.

The state-required investigations “are not private inquiries undertaken for SCE’s benefit and legal protection,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in a filing last year. “Those investigations are regulated activities that exist to protect the public and enhance public safety by preventing future fires.”

To begin those investigations, Edison’s crews often get to the ignition site before government officials. In the 2019 Saddleridge fire in Sylmar, an investigator from the Los Angeles Fire Department found the yellow police tape at the road leading to where the blaze started on the ground and an Edison truck leaving the site, according to his report.

California utility regulators have said the earliest observations at the scene are critical in determining what happened.

L.A. Fire Justice attorney Mikal Watts presents findings on the cause of the Eaton fire at transmission tower 3 at a January 2025 news conference in Pasadena.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Loretta Lynch, former president of the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the electric companies, said she believed Edison was wrongly using attorney-client privilege and protective orders “as a sword to prevent justice.”

Lynch said the confidentiality could keep evidence of Edison’s possible negligence from being used at a future state hearing that will look at whether the company acted safely and prudently before the Eaton fire.

In that hearing, if the commission finds the company acted prudently, all damage costs will be covered by a state wildfire fund and Edison customers. The company and its shareholders would pay nothing.

“It’s time to stop this game of allowing utilities to be negligent and then walk away with their customers paying for it,” Lynch said.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company’s “assertions of privilege in civil court have nothing to do” with the future state hearing on whether the company acted prudently.

Dunleavy added that the company has been cooperating with government fire investigators and the plaintiff lawyers, responding to their requests for data.

The government’s investigation into the cause of the fire has not yet been released.

Asked about the company’s withholding of documents in court, Pizarro pointed to a 2024 California Appeals Court decision that found that Edison’s assertion of attorney-client privilege to keep evidence sealed in litigation over the 2017 Creek fire was appropriate under the law. The court said that protecting the documents generated in the internal investigation from public disclosure allowed the company’s attorneys “to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects” of their client’s situation.

Lawyers for victims of the Creek fire, which destroyed more than 100 homes and structures near Sylmar, say Edison failed to provide evidence that showed its line was a likely cause of the blaze, leading government investigators to initially wrongly blame electrical equipment owned by the L.A. Department of Water and Power. Edison continues to deny it caused the fire.

A fire truck makes its way past a portion of the Creek fire along Wheatland Avenue in Sylmar on Dec. 5, 2017.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

In the Eaton fire case, a few details of what’s in the confidential documents have been revealed in court, showing they could be significant when the first trial begins next year.

In February, plaintiff lawyers filed 13 sealed exhibits for only the judge to review, saying they showed how Edison had neglected inspections, maintenance and repair of the idle line. The records are subject to the protective order, shielding them from public view.

“There is ample evidence in this case that SCE performed more frequent and higher quality inspections and maintenance on its live equipment than it did on its inactive facilities,” they wrote.

“From all indications, SCE left Tower 208 virtually unattended for decades,” they added, referring to the pylon that held the idle line and was found to be the location of the fire’s first flames.

The plaintiff lawyers also said the protective order prevents them from disclosing photos to the public that show Edison left vegetation growing under the idle line while removing it from beneath the live wires running parallel to it, according to the court filing. Utility regulations require vegetation to be removed from under and around electric lines to reduce the risk of fire.

The lawyers added that the sealed documents showed that Edison was having problems with an outside contractor it had hired to inspect its transmission lines.

Asked about the filing, Pizarro said the claims were assertions by the plaintiff attorneys that would be debated in court.

Some legal experts have criticized the use of protective orders for keeping the public in the dark about dangerous corporate actions or products.

Lynch said protective orders and confidential settlements in wildfire litigation are preventing the public from learning information that could stop future deadly fires. She said California should consider legislation to ban the use of the secrecy tactics in wildfire lawsuits.

Firefighters work to contain the Saddleridge fire on Oct. 10, 2019, in the Sylmar neighborhood of Los Angeles.

(Patrick T. Fallon / For The Times)

The Times found protective orders in lawsuits against Edison for the 2017 Thomas fire and mudslides, which killed 23; the 2018 Woolsey fire, which killed three; the 2019 Saddleridge fire, which killed one; and the 2022 Fairview fire, which killed two. Those fires together caused billions of dollars in damages and destroyed thousands of homes.

Lawyers for the Eaton fire victims told the judge in February that the protective order, as well as similar secrecy orders in lawsuits over other fires, had kept them from speaking publicly about certain subjects in the courtroom, including what they knew about Edison’s line inspections.

“This is a significant case, against one of the world’s largest providers of electricity, which has, through the use of Confidentiality Protective Orders in other cases, impaired the Plaintiffs’ ability to fully inform the Court,” they wrote.

Late last month, Judge Seigle ordered Edison to give the victims’ lawyers more of the documents they had requested. The protective order limits the public’s access to them.

Defence lawyers had asked for case to be thrown out, claiming Maduro’s rights were violated following US abduction.

The United States has agreed to ease certain sanctions on Venezuela in order to allow the country’s government to cover the legal fees for ex-president Nicolas Maduro, who is on federal trial in New York City for drug trafficking charges after being abducted by US forces in January.

Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, had asked the Manhattan-based US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to toss out the case in February, arguing that a prohibition on the government in Caracas paying the legal fees constituted a violation of Maduro’s legal right to the counsel of his choice.

In a court filing, US Department of Justice lawyers agreed to modify US sanctions so that the Venezuelan government could pay Maduro’s defence lawyer. They said the change makes the defence’s motion to throw out the case “moot”.

The pivot is the latest update in a closely watched trial that has raised a series of legal questions based on Maduro’s status as a former head of state and how he was taken into US custody.

Critics have condemned the proceedings as fundamentally illegitimate, pointing to the extraordinary US military operation to abduct Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela. Legal experts have called the raid a blatant violation of international law.

The Trump administration has maintained that the abduction was a law enforcement operation supported by the military. It has argued that Washington does not recognise Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela following several contested elections.

Under the international law concept of “head of state immunity”, sitting world leaders are typically granted immunity from foreign national courts.

After being spirited to the US, Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty and remain jailed in Brooklyn, New York. Maduro has rejected the US charges as a false pretext for seizing control of the South American country’s natural resources.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for foreign companies to access Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

During a hearing on March 26, Judge Hellerstein did not signal that he would throw out the trial, but did question whether the sanctions preventing the Venezuelan government from covering Maduro’s legal fees were a violation of constitutional rights.

All criminal defendants in the US have constitutional rights, regardless of whether or not they are US citizens.

Prosecutors, at the time, argued that the sanctions were based on national security interests and asserted that the executive branch, rather than the judiciary, oversees foreign policy.

They further argued that Maduro and Flores could use personal funds to pay for a lawyer of their choice.

“The defendant is here, Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein.

“The right that’s implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel.”

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Trump are engaged in talks with the IRS to resolve a $10-billion lawsuit the president filed against his own tax collection agency over the leak of his tax information to news outlets between 2018 and 2020.

In a federal court filing Friday, Trump asks a judge to pause the case for 90 days while the two sides work to reach a settlement or resolution.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing says. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

Tax and ethics experts say the lawsuit raises a plethora of legal and ethical questions, including the propriety of the leader of the executive branch pursuing scorched-earth litigation against the very government he oversees.

Earlier this year, Trump filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also plaintiffs in the suit.

In 2024, former IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn, of Washington — who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a defense and national security tech firm — was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to leaking tax information about President Trump and others to two news outlets between 2018 and 2020.

The outlets were not named in the charging documents, but the description and time frame align with stories about Trump’s tax returns in the New York Times and reporting about wealthy Americans’ taxes in the nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica. The 2020 New York Times report found Trump paid $750 in federal income tax the year he first entered the White House, and no income tax at all some years, thanks to reported colossal losses.

When asked in February how he would handle any potential damages from the case, Trump said, “I think what we’ll do is do something for charity.”

“We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

Several ethics watchdog groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs challenging the president’s lawsuit.

The watchdog group Democracy Forward’s February filing states that the case is “extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics,” and “the conflicts of interest make it uncertain whether the Department of Justice will zealously defend the public fisc in the same way that it has against other plaintiffs claiming damages for related events.”

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Guards severely beat and pepper-sprayed detainees at a state-run immigration detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz” in the Florida Everglades this month, according to a lawyer for two detainees.

The guards targeted Katherine Blankenship’s clients and other detainees at the facility after they complained about not having phone access on April 2, Blankenship said in a court declaration.

The phones, which weren’t functioning, are the primary way for detainees to communicate with family and their attorneys while in the detention center. The guards began taunting the detainees, who were in a cell, then became “more aggressive and were yelling and threatening to enter the cage,” Blankenship wrote.

When one detainee approached a guard, he was punched in the face. The guards then started beating other detainees in the cell. One of Blankenship’s clients was punched in the right eye, thrown to the floor and beaten by several guards. He was kicked in the head and his shoulder and arm were injured. A guard put his knee on the detainee’s neck while restraining him, according to the attorney’s declaration, which included a photo made during a video call almost a week later showing the detainee with a bruised eye.

“The officers beat several people during this incident and broke another detained individual’s wrist,” Blankenship wrote. The detainee whose wrist was broken is not one of her clients.

Phone service was restored the next day without any explanation for why it was cut off.

The Florida Department of Emergency Management didn’t respond to questions emailed Wednesday about the incident.

Blankenship’s declaration was included in a court filing accusing state and federal officials of failing to comply with a federal judge’s preliminary injunction last month ordering detention center officials to provide access to timely, free, confidential, unmonitored and unrecorded outgoing legal calls. U.S. District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell in Fort Myers, Florida also said facility officials must provide at least one operable telephone for every 25 people held in the facility.

The judge’s order came in a response to a lawsuit that claimed detainees’ First Amendment rights were being violated.

State officials have denied restricting detainees’ access to their attorneys and cited security and staffing reasons for any challenges. Federal officials who also are defendants denied that detainees’ First Amendment rights were violated. State officials last week filed a notice that they plan to appeal the judge’s order.

The Everglades facility was built last summer at a remote airstrip by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration to support President Trump’s immigration policies. Florida also has built a second immigration detention center in north Florida.

During a visit last week to the detention center, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, said she wasn’t given the chance to talk to detainees. She described conditions at the detention center as “inhumane.”

“The way the detainees are housed is cruel and unnecessary,” she said.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Gisela Salomon in Miami contributed to this report.

Lil Tjay’s attorney is denying that the rapper was involved with Offset’s shooting.

Dawn M. Florio, the rapper’s apparent attorney, posted a statement on Instagram on Tuesday slamming “false rumors” that Lil Tjay was involved at the incident that occurred Monday at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Fla.

“Lil Tjay has not been shot, nor has Lil Tjay been charged with any shooting,” the statement says. “Any reporting to the contrary is false. We encourage people to consult trusted news sources, and to verify the accuracy of any reporting, before reflexively sharing or repeating baseless rumors.”

The Seminole Police Department previously told The Times that one of the two individuals arrested Monday in connection to the incident related to Offset’s shooting was Tione Jayden Merritt. The 24-year-old is known professionally as Lil Tjay. Merritt was booked into a Broward County jail on charges of disorderly conduct and operating a vehicle without a valid license.

As of Tuesday morning, charges had not been filed against the second detainee.

According to police, the incident began as a fight near the hotel valet. After Offset was shot, he was transported to Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood and was listed as in stable condition.

Born Kiari Cephus, Offset gained prominence as a member of rap trio Migos along with fellow Georgia rappers Quavo and Takeoff. The group was founded in 2008 and together until Takeoff was fatally shot in 2022. Offset shares three children with estranged wife Cardi B.

Times staff writer Clara Harter contributed to this report.

“What’s the rate today?”

That’s the message Juan gets every day starting around 9 am. Often it doesn’t matter if it’s Sunday, a national holiday, Christmas, or Holy Week. The demand for bolívares is always there, and Juan is always ready to supply it.

It wasn’t always this way. Back in July 2024, Juan worked in an office in Chuao from 8 to 5. The only messages he used to receive were from his bosses, friends, or family.

In fact, if you ask Juan how he got into this business, he’ll tell you he never imagined doing it. Sure, he knew many money changers and understood the basic economics, but he also knew the risks. Juan thought he didn’t have the means to take them on.

But things changed after July 28, 2024. As political tensions rose after the elections, the economic scene began to shift. After a few years of relative stability, devaluation returned to the Venezuelan context with the possibility of new sanctions looming. By late August 2024, the parallel dollar had drifted away from the official BCV dollar (Central Bank of Venezuela rate), creating an exchange rate gap.

To make matters worse, the government ordered businesses to charge prices using the official rate. If a product’s price was listed in dollars, its conversion to bolívares had to follow the BCV rate, not the rates displayed by Binance or Monitor Dólar.

That created a distortion in the economy. In practice, prices were cheaper in bolívares than in dollars, which boosted the use of bolívares: up to more than 80% of daily transactions, according to Ecoanalítica.

Juan knows the foreign exchange crimes law hangs over his head and how much changed after January 3.

That’s how Juan found his new line of work. One morning, he realized he could act as the bridge for friends and family needing to get bolívares. He first partnered with the office administrator, someone who always had bolívares on hand. But as demand grew, he had to rely on a friend already in the business to keep up.

Two years later, Juan runs a small but structured operation. He has bolívar suppliers and plenty of clients. He considers himself a retail money changer. He doesn’t handle large volumes like some of his peers, but it’s enough to live well.

Still, not everything in this world shines. He’s aware of the foreign exchange crimes law that hangs over his head, knows how much changed after January 3, and recognizes that the future may force him to evolve or rebuild.

This is the daily life of a money changer in Venezuela, his reality and expectations after the events of January 3rd.

What rate are you using?

For money changers, life revolves around two questions:

The first refers to the day’s operating rate on the market. Typically, Binance serves as the main reference for negotiations.

Juan explains that this is usually the highest rate available, and that it’s common to find bolívares slightly cheaper. At the end of the day, everyone (individuals and businesses alike) wants to minimize losses.

That’s why you might see a 3–5% difference between the Binance rate and street prices.

The money changer operates within that margin. Juan says most of his bolívares come from companies that need to unload them quickly. His power depends on the amount involved and how urgently the client needs the transaction.

When the sums are small, bolívares are usually cheaper than the Binance rate. But if the amounts are large, some people buy at a premium (above Binance) and then sell below it, closer to the street price.

That’s where the business is.

Juan expects the gap to remain due to inflation and rising economic activity. With more bolívares circulating, pressure on the parallel market will return.

As for the second question—how do you pay?—it may sound simple, but it reveals much about Venezuela’s monetary dynamics.

Basically, the question centers whether you pay in cash dollars or via Zelle. This distinction might not seem relevant elsewhere, but in Venezuela’s economy, it matters a lot.

Juan recalls that cash dominated most transactions back in 2025. Everyone paid in physical dollars, and there was growing interest in “bankarization”—something Juan even started offering as an additional service.

By early 2026, however, most payments are now done through Zelle transfers. Cash usage has dropped, and more people are urgently looking for physical dollars.

Ultimately, this just mirrors broader economic movements. During 2025, under strict sanctions, most of the dollars entering Venezuela came in cash. Now, with oil companies returning and a new exchange framework in place, money enters mainly through transfers.

Juan’s only wish is that the money keeps flowing.

“I’m still selling plenty”

There’s been an elephant in the room since January 3rd.

The exchange rate gap was born from several factors, such as sanctions, uncertainty, and speculation. Now that sanctions are being relaxed and Venezuela is earning more foreign currency from oil exports, many thought the problem was solved.

When the government announced a $500 million cash injection into the economy in January, plenty of people claimed the gap would vanish.

Juan heard it both seriously and jokingly. His answer: “I’m still selling plenty.”

He knows the issue isn’t that simple. While the dollar has stopped devaluing as quickly and the gap has narrowed, he sees that there’s still a long way to go.

Seasonal factors come into play, too. The first quarter brings income tax payments (ISLR), which pull bolívares out of circulation. Meanwhile, new dollars arrive at day-to-day varying rates, a mix that reduces bolívar availability.

For the first time in his career, Juan has faced days when he simply runs out of bolívares.

Yet as long as political uncertainty and lack of transparency persist, none of this will really be solved.

Juan expects the gap to remain due to inflation and rising economic activity. With more bolívares circulating, pressure on the parallel market will return. It won’t be as sharp as in 2025, but it will still matter.

As several economists point out, the only lasting solution is a credible adjustment program that restores market confidence. Until that happens, Juan plans to keep working and maybe expand into areas like financial intermediation.

He’s aware of the risks, including a possible police investigation and legal fallout, but he considers them part of the deal. Profit is worth it, and for him, risk is just the shared language of doing business in Venezuela.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump’s claim that he has the power to revise the Constitution and to end birthright citizenship for babies born in this country to parents who were here unlawfully or temporarily.

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It has been blocked by judges across the country and has never been in effect.

His lawyers contend they seek to correct a 160-year misunderstanding about the Constitution’s promise that “all persons born” in this country are deemed to be citizens.

The president’s executive order “restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause” and would deny “on a prospective basis only” citizenship to the “children of temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal.

But the first hurdle for Trump and his lawyers may concern the powers of the president.

In February, the court blocked Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs on the grounds the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to impose import taxes.

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

After the Civil War, Congress adopted a civil rights act in 1866 that said “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States … of every race and color.”

To make sure that rule stood over time, it was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Its opening line says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld that rule and affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers set multiple rules for deciding disputes over American parents who live abroad, but the first rule was simple and undisputed.

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the law said.

Critics say Trump’s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complicated one. States would have to look into the history and legal status of a newborn’s parents to decide whether they met the new qualifications.

Until now, a valid birth certificate had been sufficient to establish a person’s U.S. citizenship.

Last week, Trump was urging Senate Republicans to pass a new election law that would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state.

“Proving citizenship to vote is a no brainer,” the White House said.

This week, however, Trump’s lawyers are urging the court to rule that their birth in this country is not proof of their citizenship.

There is a “logical inconsistency” here,” said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center.

In the legal battle now before the court, the key disputed phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction.” That has been understood to mean that people within the United States are subject to the laws here, except for foreign diplomats and, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

But Sauer contends it excludes newborns who are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction” because their parents are in this country unlawfully.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called this a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child.

If upheld, this order could apply to “tens of thousands of children born every month, “ they said, “devastating families around the country.” But worse yet, they said, the outcome “would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump’s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a ruling would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to adopt new provisions, including a limit for expectant mothers who enter this country to give birth.

ATLANTA — Attorneys for Georgia’s Fulton County and President Trump’s administration squared off in court Friday over the county’s demand that the FBI return seized ballots and other materials from the 2020 election.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing Fulton County, noted that the January raid was “unusual” because it involved an old election and allegations that have already been investigated in the years since Trump, a Republican, lost the county and the state to Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Lowell contended that the Trump administration seized the materials because it grew impatient with litigation the Justice Department filed to obtain them last year. “There’s abundant law that the left hand of the department needs to know what the right hand is doing,” Lowell told U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee.

Michael Weisbuch, representing the federal government, replied that the separate civil litigation wasn’t “relevant in any respect.” He said the administration has already provided Fulton County with digital copies of everything taken and needs to retain physical copies to carry out its own investigation.

Boulee wrote in a scheduling order that the hearing was needed after the two sides failed to reach an agreement in court-ordered mediation.

Trump’s actions alarm Democrats and election officials

The Jan. 28 seizure from a warehouse near Atlanta targeted the elections hub in Georgia’s most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and includes most of Atlanta. Fulton County has been at the center of unfounded claims by Trump and his allies that widespread election fraud cost him reelection.

The FBI’s move was among several actions by the Trump administration that have alarmed Democrats and many election officials who are concerned it’s using law enforcement to pursue the president’s personal grievances and is planning ways to interfere in this year’s midterm elections. The FBI also used a subpoena earlier this month to obtain records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona, another battleground state Trump lost that year.

At the same time, the Justice Department is fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.

Justice Department says it’s investigating 2020 ‘irregularities’

Lawyers for Fulton County argued in a court filing that the seizure of its documents was “improper and unjustified” and demonstrates “callous disregard” for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The Justice Department seeks to “set a precedent that would grant the federal government unchecked power to interfere with the local administration of elections,” it wrote.

Justice Department attorneys argued that preparing a detailed affidavit and presenting it to a judge “is the exact opposite of ‘callous disregard’” for those constitutional rights. “Their goal to disrupt an ongoing federal criminal investigation is clear,” they wrote of Fulton County officials.

The Justice Department said it is investigating “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County” and identified two laws that might have been violated. One requires election records to be maintained for 22 months, while the other prohibits procuring, casting or tabulating false, fictitious or fraudulent ballots.

The filing said the FBI is looking into whether Fulton County properly retained ballot images; whether some ballots were scanned and counted multiple times; whether unfolded, unmailed ballots were counted as mail-in absentee ballots; and potential irregularities concerning tabulator tapes from the scanners used to count ballots.

Fulton County’s lawyers wrote that the “deficiencies” or “defects” in the county’s handling of the 2020 election cited in the affidavit are the kinds of human errors that commonly occur without any intentional wrongdoing and cannot establish probable cause.

Election tech expert cites problems in the affidavit

To support their claims, Fulton County officials submitted a sworn declaration from Ryan Macias, an election technology and security expert who advised the county during the 2020 election. He said the affidavit contains “a multitude of false or misleading statements and omissions” and offered explanations for the alleged “deficiencies.”

Investigations by the Georgia secretary of state and independent reviews contradict the core allegations of the affidavit, which is “rife with statements from witnesses lacking credibility, with extraordinary and undisclosed biases,” Fulton’s lawyers argued.

Georgia’s votes in the 2020 presidential race were counted three times, including once by hand, and each count affirmed Biden’s win.

Federal government lawyers rejected the idea that the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit “intentionally or recklessly misled” the judge, writing that “the supposed misrepresentations and omissions flagged by Petitioners are illusory and/or immaterial.” They also asserted that a lapse of the statute of limitations on the potential crimes does not negate probable cause.

The Justice Department also noted that a federal magistrate judge reviewed the FBI affidavit and signed off on the search warrant. Fulton County sought to have the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit testify at Friday’s hearing, but the Justice Department objected and the judge sided with the federal government.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

March 26 (UPI) — Former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is scheduled to appear for a court hearing Thursday in New York to argue that the U.S. government is preventing him from paying his lawyer.

The hearing was originally scheduled by Judge Alvin Hellerstein to allow lawyers time to review evidence and possibly set a trial date. But Maduro’s attorney, Barry Pollack, said last month that he will have to withdraw because the U.S. government won’t allow the Venezuelan government to pay his legal fees. Pollack said the Maduros do not have any money.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by the American government in early January. They were taken to New York and charged on federal drug trafficking and weapons charges. The U.S. government then installed Delcy Rodriguez as the new president of Venezuela.

Since then, Maduro has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn in a unit that gives him “special administrative measures.” The SAMs unit doesn’t allow him access to the outside world and keeps him isolated, CBS News reported. Flores is in a different unit in the same facility.

Pollack said the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control granted then revoked a license that would allow Maduro to pay his legal fees. The Maduros and the Venezuelan government are sanctioned by the United States. That means anyone who wants to receive payment must get a license to do so legally.

Pollack argues that not allowing him to pay his fees is a violation of Maduro’s constitutional right to defend himself. Flores’ lawyer has joined the motion.

Prosecutors have said the initial license was an “administrative error” and the Maduros can still use their personal funds.

“OFAC, however, has denied the defendants’ request for an additional exception: to allow them to pay their legal fees from a slush fund controlled by a sanctioned government. That is because OFAC regulations expressly prohibit using a sanctioned entity’s funds to pay a separate sanctioned person’s attorneys’ fees,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor who specializes in sanctions law, told CNN that Maduro would still be entitled to a court-appointed attorney.

“Because he is not recognized as the leader of Venezuela and the whole sanctions regime is meant to cut him off, it’s unlikely that the court is going to feel that he’s entitled to any of the money to help fund his criminal defense,” Levin said.

Pollack has also said he intends to challenge the legality of Maduro’s arrest because he was president at the time of the alleged crimes.

“Under the U.S. Constitution, it’s the president who gets to determine who to recognize as head of state, and I am 100% certain a U.S. court is not going to second guess a U.S. determination that Maduro is no longer head of state,” William Dodge, an international law professor at George Washington University’s law school, told CNN.

“Snatching him was illegal under international law,” he said, but “it’s quite well established in the U.S. the illegality of bringing someone into court doesn’t affect the jurisdiction of the court.”

Dodge added: “Drug trafficking isn’t an official act.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the government to return to the U.S. a California DACA recipient who was deported last month to Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins in Sacramento gave the government seven days to return Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, 42, and restore her protections under the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, “as if her Feb. 19, 2026 removal never occurred.”

A lawyer for Estrada Juarez argued that she was unlawfully deported within a day of appearing at a scheduled immigration appointment in Sacramento.

Lawyers for the government, meanwhile, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Estrada Juarez’s case because her petition was filed after she was deported and because her removal was a discretionary decision the government is entitled to.

Coggins said she found the government’s argument “unavailing,” writing in her ruling that Estrada Juarez “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA, and in violation of the Constitutional protections afforded to her under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

In a statement, Estrada Juarez said she was “overwhelmed with relief and hope” after learning the court’s decision.

The Department of Homeland Security said it had reinstated an expedited removal order for Estrada Juarez from 1998, when she was 15. But her lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, said the record showed that the order lacked supervisory approval and was never finalized, so there was no valid removal order to reinstate.

Homeland Security previously told The Times that an immigration judge had ordered Estrada Juarez’s deportation in 1998 “and she was removed from the United States shortly after.” Tolchin said Estrada Juarez never saw an immigration judge.

Estrada Juarez, who worked as a regional manager for Motel 6, has had protection from deportation under DACA since 2013. She applied for legal permanent residency, or a green card, through her daughter, Damaris Bello, 22, who is a U.S. citizen.

Her deportation after the green card interview garnered public attention and outrage from members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

Tolchin filed the lawsuit seeking her return on March 10.

DACA was created to protect undocumented people who were brought to the U.S. as children.

As of June 2025, there were more than 515,000 DACA recipients, known as “Dreamers,” in the U.S. California has 144,000 DACA recipients, the most of any state, according to federal data.

A jury found Ye, the controversial music impresario formerly known as Kanye West, liable in the legal dispute brought by his former contractor and ordered him to pay $140,000.

Tony Saxon, who also worked as Ye’s security guard and caretaker at the Malibu property, sued the rapper in Los Angeles Superior Court in September 2023, claiming a slate of labor violations, nonpayment of services and disability discrimination.

The $140,000 judgment announced Wednesday is far less than the $1.7 million in damages that Saxon’s lawyers had originally requested. Ye will also have to pay for Saxon’s legal fees, which is expected to put the total sum that West will have to pay at more than $1 million.

Although Saxon’s attorneys at the Los Angeles-based firm West Coast Trial Lawyers called the verdict a “mixed” one, they characterized it as as a “vindication for our client.”

“Ye’s lawyers called him a liar, a fraud, and a malingerer in court. His medical records, bank records, and personal family history were dissected, mocked, and vilified,” said attorney Ronald Zambrano in a statement.

“In true David-vs.-Goliath fashion, Mr. Saxon stood firm against one of the biggest celebrities in the world, with the truth on his side,” Zambrano said.

Saxon alleged that while working as a security guard on the property, he was forced to sleep on the floor and was fired in November 2021 for failing to comply with Ye’s “dangerous requests.” He also said that he frequently complained to West about these and other issues, but that the rapper failed to address them.

In a statement, Ye’s spokesperson noted the jury had “rejected almost all of his [Saxon’s ] claims,” and that Saxon only recovered “a small fraction of what his lawyers demanded.”

“The jury also found that Saxon acted in the capacity of a contractor and did not qualify for the employee exception under California’s contractor licensing statutes,” according to the statement. “We believe the damages award is legally barred and we’ll be seeking post-trial relief from the court.”

Ye purchased the beachfront concrete mansion in 2021— designed by Pritzker Prize-winning Japanese architect Tadao Ando — for $57.3 million. He then gutted the property on Malibu Road, reportedly saying, “This is going to be my bomb shelter. This is going to be my Batcave.”

Three years later, the hip-hop star sold the unfinished mansion (he had removed the windows, doors, electricity and plumbing and broke down walls), at a significant loss to developer Steven Belmont’s Belwood Investments for $21 million.

In court filings Ye denied Saxon’s allegations. In a November 2023 response to the complaint, he disputed that Saxon “has sustained any injury, damage, or loss by reason of any act, omission or breach by Defendant.”

In January, Ye sued Saxon and his law firm over a $1.8 million lien placed on the Malibu mansion, alleging they “wrongfully” placed an “invalid” lien on the property “while simultaneously launching an aggressive publicity campaign designed to pressure Ye, chill prospective transactions, and extract payment on disputed claims already being litigated in court.”

The Malibu mansion that Ye purchased and gutted was later purchased and restored to its original design.

(The Oppenheim Group / Roger Davies)

That case is pending.

Ye’s spokesperson said the lien “clouded the home’s title and interfered with its sale, destroying substantial value at the time of sale.”

In recent years, the mercurial superstar has faced a number of public and legal dramas.

In 2022, Ye lost numerous lucrative partnerships with companies like Adidas and the Gap, following a raft of antisemitic statements, including declaring himself a Nazi on X (which he later recanted).

Two years later, Ye abruptly shut down Donda Academy, the troubled private school he founded in 2020.

Ye, the school and some of his affiliated businesses faced multiple lawsuits from former employees and educators, alleging they were victims of wrongful termination, a hostile work environment and other claims.

In court filings, Ye has denied each of the claims made against him by former employees and educators at Donda.

Several of those suits have been settled.