lawyer

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.