legal

If you’re about to book seats, read this first and then decide

If you’re heading on holiday soon and wondering whether or not to book specific seats, you may want to hold off. According to travel experts at Which?, you’re “probably wasting” your money if you’re paying to sit together.

It comes as Which? Travel found many customers who didn’t pay for seat selection “told us they ended up seated with their travel companions anyway.” Talking about other major airlines, they state that “most” of them will “automatically seat you with the people you booked with” with the figure for those being seated together for easyJet standing at 93% with Jet2 at 90%.

Am I legally entitled to sit with family?

Many people may think that there is a legal requirement to do this, especially those with children. But this is not the case at all. Which? explained: “There’s no legal right to sit next to your family, not even children.”

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says: “Young children and infants who are accompanied by adults should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult. Where this is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults.”

In a recent post, Which? also stress: “There is no UK law that says children have to be seated with their parents on a plane.”

What UK airlines sit families together?

Which? state: “Most airlines will seat people who book together for free, whether they’re families or not. Paying for a seat is usually unnecessary – except with a couple of carriers, as we’ll see below.

“We’ve looked at the policies of some of the major airlines to see how likely they are to seat children with parents – and whether you’ll need to pay extra. Also, be warned that some airlines will charge hundreds of pounds more for a baby than others.”

Travelling soon?

If you are set to travel soon, holidaymakers should also know that there are seven essential passport checks you should carry out before heading on holiday this summer. Travel insurance experts at Tiger.co.uk have said people should ensure the laminate over the personal details page is not lifting or peeling.

This is because it could raise suspicions of tampering. This is a common reason for passports being flagged or rejected so even if all the information is readable, it’s best to get your passport replaced to prevent any issues.

They further add that if your passport has sustained water damage, you likely won’t be able to use it as a valid travel document. While minor exposure to water such as slightly crinkled page edges shouldn’t be an issue – further damage like smudged ink or discolouration can lead to delays or refusals at the border. You can read about all seven key passport checks for Brits here.

John Torode is preparing to take legal action against the BBC after he was sacked from MasterChef, sources have revealed to us. He was sacked from the show after an allegation against him using of him using “an extremely offensive racist term”

John Torode is preparing to take legal action against the BBC after he was sacked from MasterChef. He was ditched from the cooking show after an allegation against him using “an extremely offensive racist term” was upheld.

John said he had “no recollection” of it happening – and in a statement told how he’d only found out his contract had been terminated after the Beeb and producers Banijay put out the news. Now sources close to the star say he’s speaking to employment lawyers as he fights to “clear his name.”

“John is preparing to launch the lawsuit against the BBC,” tells the insider. “He wants to pursue them for unfair dismissal. He’s telling people there is no proof of his supposed comment. It was not in a work capacity, it was just hearsay. John is determined to clear his name.”

Torode, 59, followed his MasterChef co-host Gregg Wallace out of the door at the BBC for allegedly using racist language.

The Australian star continues to insist he had no knowledge of the “offensive” comment he was accused of making, despite lawyers Lewis Silkin upholding the complaint, said to be from 2018 in their independent investigation into the series.

It came after the firm upheld 45 out of 83 claims against Wallace, 60, including “unwanted physical contact”, “being in a state of undress”, bullying and inappropriate jokes.

Torode himself revealed he was the subject on an allegation, saying: “I do not believe that it happened.” The source said the move took the Beeb by surprise.

“John is a tough talking Aussie and does not stand to ceremony. The BBC were not expecting John Torode to jump the gun about the comment and make a statement.”

MasterChef production company Banijay UK said it had discussed the matter with Torode and with the BBC and that they “are agreed that we will not renew his contract on MasterChef “.

But in a statement released on Tuesday night, Torode said: “Although I haven’t heard from anyone at the BBC or Banijay, I am seeing and reading I’ve been ‘sacked’ from MasterChef. I repeat that I have no recollection of what I’m accused of. The enquiry could not even state the date or year of when I am meant to have said something wrong.”

He said Celebrity MasterChef, which he recently filmed with food critic Grace Dent, along with two Christmas specials, would be his last. “Personally, I have loved every minute working on MasterChef, but it’s time to pass the cutlery to someone else.”

Speaking to BBC News on Tuesday afternoon, BBC Director General Davie described the allegation against Torode as “a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any way shape or form. It’s really important we are taking this seriously,” he said. “We’ve drawn a line in the sand.”

It comes as the Mirror can reveal ITV are set to stand by John Torode and give his TV career a lifeline. Multiple sources at the channel said there were “no current changes to scheduling” for the weekend. This means the third episode of John and Lisa’s Weekend Kitchen will go out at 11.40am on Saturday. He hosts the show with wife Lisa Faulkner and it is the 10th anniversary series on air.

One ITV source said: “I think we will keep going with the show. We don’t know the details of the BBC issue and have never had any trouble with him ourselves. We obviously have our own complaints handling procedure and a code of conduct for talent at ITV. There have been no issues raised with John so the series is set to continue to air.”

Another source said the developments have been “hard for Lisa”, who is “conscious of their ITV show and doesn’t want to jeopardise that.” Torode’s dismissal comes as the BBC confirmed that several members of staff have been sacked following a recent review into the corporation’s culture.

Samir Shah, chairman of the BBC, acknowledged that some powerful individuals still make life “unbearable” for their colleagues.

Speaking as the corporation released its annual report on Tuesday, he acknowledged that over the past year there had been a “string of revelations” about abuses of power at the corporation. Our staff are dedicated, hardworking and treat each other with respect,” he said. “However, there are pockets in the organisation where this is not the case. There are still places where powerful individuals – on and off-screen – can abuse that power to make life for their colleagues unbearable.”

Director-general Tim Davie insisted he can lead the BBC in the “right way” after the series of scandals. The corporation has been criticised for recent failings, which include breaching its own editorial guidelines and allegations surrounding the former MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace and John Torode.

Asked after the release of the 2024/2025 annual report whether he would resign, he said: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.

“There’s enormous, massive noise and different opinions about what we should do, but I think we have been clear. We are making the right decisions. We’re being transparent. I would also say that… I’ve set a very clear stall out in terms of impartiality.”

Question marks now hang over the full recording of BBC1 ’s amateur version of MasterChef, put on ice over the probe into Wallace, and the 20th celebrity series, with 20 faces yet to be named, plus judge Grace Dent.

But Davie insisted the show would survive. “It’s a great programme, well loved by audiences. It is bigger than individuals. It can survive and prosper, but we’ve got to make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

ATLANTA — As federal agents conduct immigration raids in Southern California and across America, the union representing major and minor league baseball players has warned any concerned members to “carry documentation wherever they go,” union chief Tony Clark said Tuesday.

Clark, asked about the raids amid the context of a significant Latino player base, said the union has retained immigration lawyers and encourages players and family members to reach out with any concerns, so as to ensure players can be “in the best position possible to just get to the ballpark and do their jobs.”

Said Clark: “We continue to communicate with our guys and assure them, whether they’re at the minor league level or at the major league level, this is how best to protect yourself in the near term, and carrying the documentation while having an open line of communication is what we’ve found has worked so far.”

Clark said the union is working “hand in hand” with the league on this issue and believes the league is delivering a similar message to players. Clark and MLB commissioner Rob Manfred each spoke in separate meetings with the Baseball Writers Assn. of America here Tuesday.

Manfred said the league has discussed the issue with the Trump Administration.

“They assured us that there were going to be protections for our players — for example, going back and forth between the U.S. and Canada,” Manfred said. “They told us that was what was going to happen. That’s what happened. Beyond that, it’s all speculation.”

A federal judge ruled last week that the government cannot use racial profiling — what language someone speaks, for instance, or what race they are — in coming to the “reasonable suspicion” required to detain someone.

According to the league, 28% of players on opening day rosters were born outside the United States, with the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Cuba ranking as the top three foreign countries.

Does Manfred worry Latino players might get caught up in the raids?

“I worry about anything that could be disruptive to the very best players in the world,” he said. “The prospect of that disruption, given that our players all have visas, it’s speculation at this point. We have seen no evidence of that at this point.”

The international legal order loses its effectiveness when faced with the unilateralism of hegemonic powers as well as acts that flout universally accepted norms. If such practices remain unaddressed, there is a risk that the order will lose its foundational purpose: the protection of justice, peace, and the sovereignty of nations.

The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, including the targeted killings of scientists and intellectuals, bombing of IAEA-approved nuclear facilities, and strikes against residential, medical, media, and public infrastructure, is a prime example of illegal, unilateral action that must not remain unaddressed. It is a wrongful act and a clear violation of fundamental norms of international law.

In this context, the principle of state responsibility, which dictates that states are held accountable for wrongful acts, must be applied. This principle was codified by the International Law Commission ILC in its 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which have since been widely recognised and cited by international courts and tribunals.

Per their provisions, the commission of a wrongful act – such as the unlawful use of force – constitutes a violation of an international obligation and imposes a binding duty on the responsible state to provide full and effective reparation for the harm caused.

In the case of the illegal acts committed by the United States and Israel, the scope of legal responsibility goes far beyond ordinary violations. These acts not only contravened customary international law, but also breached peremptory norms, the highest-ranking norms within the international legal hierarchy. Among these, the principle of the prohibition of aggression is a core and universally binding rule. No state is permitted to derogate from this norm, and violations trigger obligations, requiring all members of the international community to respond collectively to uphold the law.

There are at least two relevant legal precedents that can guide the application of the principle of state responsibility and the obligation for reparations in the case of Iran.

In 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 487 in response to Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. It unequivocally characterised this act of aggression as a “serious threat to the entire safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]”, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution also fully recognised the inalienable sovereign right of all states to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes.

Article 6 stipulates that “Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel”. By mandating that the aggressor compensate the victim for the resulting damages, the resolution provides a clear legal precedent for pursuing redress in similar cases.

Thus, given the fact that the attacks by the US and Israel were carried out with public declarations confirming the operations and are well-documented, the application of the principles and provisions of Resolution 487 to the Iranian case is not only appropriate and necessary but also firmly grounded in international law.

Another relevant document is UN Security Council Resolution 692, which was adopted in 1991 and established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The commission was tasked with processing claims for compensation of losses and damages incurred as a result of the invasion.

The creation of UNCC demonstrated the capacity of international mechanisms to identify victims, evaluate damage, and implement practical compensation – setting a clear model for state responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression.

This precedent provides a strong legal and institutional basis for asserting the rights of the Iranian people. It is therefore both appropriate and necessary for the UN to establish a rule-based mechanism, such as an international commission on compensation, to redress Iran.

Such a commission, initiated and endorsed by the UN General Assembly or other competent UN bodies, should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the damages inflicted by the unlawful and aggressive acts of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran.

The establishment of reparative mechanisms – whether through independent commissions, fact-finding bodies, or compensation funds operating under international oversight – would contribute meaningfully to restoring trust in the global legal system and provide a principled response to the ongoing normalisation of impunity.

Iran also has another avenue for pursuing justice for the illegal attacks it was subjected to. In the lead-up to them, the IAEA published biased and politically motivated reports about the Iranian nuclear programme, which facilitated the commission of aggression by the US and Israel and breached the principle of neutrality.

This places Iran in a position to seek redress and claim damages from the agency under Article 17 of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a state harmed by the agency’s manifest negligence, Iran is entitled to full reparation for all material and moral damages inflicted upon its peaceful nuclear facilities and scientific personnel.

In this context, pursuing accountability for the IAEA, alongside the aggressor states, is a vital element of Iran’s broader strategy to uphold accountability within the international legal order. By relying on recognised, legitimate, and binding international mechanisms, Iran will steadfastly defend the rights of its people at every forum.

Ultimately, responsibility for the recent crimes of this war of aggression does not lie solely with the direct perpetrators, the US and Israel, and those who aided them, the IAEA. All states and international organisations bear an undeniable obligation to implement effective legal measures to prevent such crimes.

The international community as a whole must respond decisively. Silence, delay, or any form of complicity in the face of aggression and atrocities would reduce the principle of state accountability under international law to an empty slogan.

In its pursuit of accountability, Iran will exhaust all available resources and will not relent until the rights of its people are fully recognised and they receive adequate redress. It will continue to seek the prosecution and accountability of those responsible for these crimes, both domestically and internationally, until justice is fully achieved.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Bangkok, Thailand – Even at the Nana intersection, a pulsating mecca of this megacity’s seamy nightlife scene, the Wonderland cannabis shop is hard to miss.

Its sprawling, ruby-pink signboard screams across the busy crossroads, broadcasting the wares inside with the help of neon lights twisted into luminescent marijuana leaves.

It is Saturday afternoon, and business should be good. But it is not.

Just days earlier, Thailand’s government imposed new rules sharply curbing the sale of cannabis, only three years after decriminalising the plant with much fanfare and unleashing a billion-dollar business in the process.

All sales of cannabis buds must now be accompanied by a doctor’s prescription – a stipulation aimed at choking off the recreational market, the mainstay of most of the thousands of dispensaries that now dot the country.

Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin has also announced his intention to place the plant back on the country’s controlled narcotics list within 45 days, putting it in the company of cocaine, heroin and meth.

Nanuephat Kittichaibawan, an assistant manager at Wonderland, said his shop used to serve 10 or more customers an hour most afternoons.

Now, even with an in-house doctor to write prescriptions on the spot, “it is just one or two”, he told Al Jazeera.

“It is more complicated than it used to be, and for some people it will be too much,” he added.

Like many in the business, he worries the new rules may even force him to shut down, putting him out of work.

“If we follow the rules, we could [have to] close,” he said. “I do worry about that. A lot of people have this as their main job, and they need it to survive.”

Faris Pitsuwan, who owns five dispensaries on some of Thailand’s most popular tourist islands, including Ko Phi Phi Don and Phuket, is worried, too.

“Yesterday, I could not sell anything,” he told Al Jazeera. “I hope my business will survive, but too soon to say.”

While announcing the policy U-turn last week, Somsak said the new rules would help contain Thailand’s cannabis industry to the medical market, as intended when a previous administration, and a different health minister, decriminalised the plant in 2022.

“The policy must return to its original goal of controlling cannabis for medical use only,” government spokesman Jirayu Houngsub said.

Since a new administration took over in 2023, the government has blamed decriminalisation for a wave of problems, including a spike in overdoses among children and adolescents and increased smuggling to countries where cannabis is still illegal.

A survey by the government’s National Institute of Development Administration last year found that three in four Thais strongly or moderately agreed with putting cannabis back on the narcotics list.

Smith Srisont, president of Thailand’s Association of Forensic Physicians, has been urging the government to relist cannabis from the beginning, mostly because of the health risks.

Smith notes that more than one study has found a fivefold to sixfold spike in cannabis-related health problems among children and adolescents since legalisation.

Although shops have been forbidden from selling to anyone below the age of 20, Smith says it has been too hard to enforce because the job falls mostly on health officers, rather than police, and Thailand does not have enough.

“So, they can’t … look at every shop,” he told Al Jazeera, but “if cannabis is [treated more] like methamphetamine … it will be … better because the police can [then get] involved” right away.

Many farmers and shop owners, though, say the blowback from legalising cannabis has been exaggerated, and scapegoated by the leading Pheu Thai Party to punish the Bhumjaithai Party, which abandoned the ruling coalition two weeks ago over Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s alleged bungling of a border dispute with Cambodia.

Somsak has denied the claim.

Bhumjaithai had led the push to decriminalise cannabis and was tussling with Pheu Thai for control of the powerful Ministry of the Interior in the weeks leading up to its split from the coalition.

“As soon as one party steps down from the coalition, this happens. The timing just could not be any more perfect,” Chokwan Chopaka, who opened a dispensary along Bangkok’s bustling Sukhumvit Boulevard soon after Thailand legalised cannabis, told Al Jazeera.

“I understand that cannabis does create issues,” she said, “[but] I feel that those issues could have been at least mitigated if the government were actually enforcing the rules that [did] exist in the first place.”

Chokwan said she had to shutter her shop a few months ago because she could no longer both follow those rules and compete with other dispensaries in the neighbourhood that were getting away with breaking them.

She expects that most dispensaries will end up closing if the new rules are enforced diligently, many of them before recouping the investments they made to get up and running.

“A lot of people are very stressed out. We’re talking about people that are borrowing money into this. This is their last breath, their last lot of savings, because our economy hasn’t been well,” Chokwan said.

The Thai government said in May that the national economy may grow by as little as 1.3 percent this year, dragged down in part by slumping tourist arrivals.

The government has blamed the freewheeling cannabis scene of the past three years for putting some tourists off Thailand – another reason, it argues, to tighten the reins.

Shah, on his second trip to Thailand from India in the past year, said the new rules could do more harm than good by pushing tourists like him and his friend away.

“One of the reasons that we do come here is so that we can smoke good weed,” Shah, who asked to be referred to by his last name only, told Al Jazeera.

Having landed in Bangkok only hours earlier, Shah and his friend were leaving a Nana neighbourhood dispensary with their purchase.

A self-avowed recreational user, Shah said the shop wrote him a prescription with few questions and no fuss.

But if the government does get serious about enforcing the new rules, he added, “maybe I’ll think twice next time and go somewhere else.”

Cannabis farmers are fretting about the new rules, too.

To keep selling their buds to local shops, every farm will soon need a Good Agriculture and Collection Practice (GACP) certificate from the government.

It certifies that the farm has met certain quality control standards.

Chokwan, who also leads the Writing Thailand’s Cannabis Future Network, a cannabis advocacy group, said only about 100 cannabis farms across the country currently have GACP certification.

Getting farms ready and tested can be expensive, she said, while forcing it on all farmers will weed out thousands of “little guys”, leaving the largest farms and the corporations backing them to dominate the market.

Coming in at less than 300 square metres (360 square yards), under banks of LED lights inside an unassuming beige building on the outskirts of Bangkok, the Thai Kush cannabis farm easily qualifies as one of the little guys.

Owner Vara Thongsiri said the farm has been supplying shops across the country since 2022. His main gripe with the new rules is how suddenly they came down.

“When you announce it and your announcement is effective immediately, how does a farm adapt that quickly? It is impossible. They didn’t even give us a chance,” he told Al Jazeera.

Vara said he would apply for the certificate nonetheless and was confident the quality of his buds would help his farm survive even in a smaller, medical-cannabis-only marketplace, depending on how long the application takes.

“My farm is a working farm. We harvest every month … If the process takes three months to six months, how am I going to last if I can’t sell the product I have?” he said.

“Because a farm can’t last if it can’t sell.”

Rattapon Sanrak, a cannabis farmer and shop owner, is crunching the numbers on the new regulations as well.

His small farm in the country’s fertile northeast supplies his two Highland Cafe dispensaries in Bangkok, including one in the heart of the city’s Khao San quarter, a warren of bars, clubs and budget accommodations catering to backpackers.

“I could stay open, but as [per] my calculation, it may not [be] worth the business. It’s not feasible any more due to the regulations, the rental and other costs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“It’s not worth the money to invest.”

Rattapon and others believe the government could have avoided the latest policy whiplash by passing a comprehensive cannabis control bill either before decriminalisation or soon after.

Like others critical of the government’s approach, he blames political brinkmanship between Bhumjaithai and Pheu Thai for failing to do so.

Proponents of such a bill say it could have set different rules for farms based on their size, helping smaller growers stay in business, and better regulations to help head off the problems the government is complaining about now.

Although a bill has been drafted, Somsak has said he has no intention of pushing it forward, insisting that placing the plant back on the narcotics list was the best way to control it.

The Writing Thailand’s Cannabis Future Network plans to hold a protest in front of the Ministry of Public Health on Monday in hopes of changing the minister’s mind.

Rattapon said he and hundreds of other farmers and shop owners also plan on filing a class action lawsuit against the government over the new rules.

In the meantime, Rattapon and others warn, the government’s attempt at confining cannabis to the medical market will not simply make the recreational supply chain vanish.

Rattapon said many producers, having poured in millions of dollars and put thousands of people to work, will go underground, where they will be even harder to control.

“Imagine you have a company, you hire 10 people, you invest 2 million baht [$61,630] for that, you’re operating your business, and then one day they say that you cannot sell it any more. And in the pipeline, you have 100 kilograms coming. What would you do?” he said.

“They will go underground.”

Faris, the dispensary owner, agreed.

He said many of the shops and farms that rely on the recreational market will close under the new rules.

“But as time goes by,” he added, “people will find a way.”

NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary legal status for more than 500,000 Haitians who are already in the United States.

District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan in New York ruled that moving up the expiration of the temporary protected status, or TPS, by at least five months for Haitians, some of whom have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, is unlawful.

The Biden administration had extended Haiti’s TPS status through at least Feb. 3, 2026, due to gang violence, political unrest, a major earthquake in 2021 and several other factors, according to court documents.

But last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was terminating those legal protections as soon as Sept. 2, setting Haitians up for potential deportation. The department said the conditions in the country had improved and Haitians no longer met the conditions for the temporary legal protections.

The ruling comes as President Trump works to end protections and programs for immigrants as part of his mass deportations promises.

The judge’s 23-page opinion states that the Department of Homeland Security’s move to terminate the legal protections early violates the TPS statute that requires a certain amount of notice before reconsidering a designation.

“When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period,” according to the ruling.

The judge also referenced the fact that the plaintiffs have started jobs, enrolled in schools and begun receiving medical treatment with the expectations that the country’s TPS designation would run through the end of the year.

Manny Pastreich, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, which filed the lawsuit, described the ruling as an “important step” but said the fight is not over.

“We will keep fighting to make sure this decision is upheld,” Pastreich said in a statement. “We will keep fighting for the rights of our members and all immigrants against the Trump Administration – in the streets, in the workplace, and in the courts as well. And when we fight, we win.”

DHS did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press requesting comment. But the government had argued that TPS is a temporary program and thus “the termination of a country’s TPS designation is a possibility beneficiaries must always expect.”

Haiti’s TPS status was initially activated in 2010 after the catastrophic earthquake and has been extended multiple times, according to the lawsuit.

Gang violence has displaced 1.3 million people across Haiti as the local government and international community struggle with the spiraling crisis, according to a report from the International Organization for Migration. There has been a 24% increase in displaced people since December, with gunmen having chased 11% of Haiti’s nearly 12 million inhabitants from their home, the report said.

In May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to deportation. The order put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept the legal protections in place.

The judge’s decision in New York also comes on the heels of the Trump administration revoking legal protections for thousands of Haitians who arrived legally in the U.S. through a humanitarian parole program.

Constitutional Court hears petition seeking premier’s dismissal as separate court hears defamation case against her father.

Thailand’s ruling political dynasty is facing legal peril, as the country’s Constitutional Court considers a petition seeking the dismissal of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, while a separate court hears a royal defamation suit against her father, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The petition filed by 36 senators and being heard on Tuesday accuses Paetongtarn of dishonesty and breaching ethical standards in violation of the constitution over a leaked telephone conversation with Cambodia’s influential former leader, Hun Sen. If the court accepts the case, it could decide to suspend the premier from duty with immediate effect.

Thaksin also has his first hearing at Bangkok’s Criminal Court on Tuesday in a case centred on allegations that he insulted Thailand’s powerful monarchy, a serious offence punishable by up to 15 years in prison if found guilty. He denies the charges and has repeatedly pledged allegiance to the crown.

The kingdom’s politics have for years been dominated by a battle between the conservative, pro-military, pro-royalist elite and the Shinawatra family, whom the elite consider a threat to Thailand’s traditional social order.

On Tuesday, Thailand’s Constitutional Court is due to meet for the first time since a group of conservative senators lodged a case against Paetongtarn, accusing her of breaching ministerial ethics during a diplomatic spat with Cambodia.

If the court decides to hear the case, they could suspend the prime minister as they enter months-long deliberations, plunging Thailand into chaos as it grapples with a spluttering economy and the threat of tariffs from the United States.

The controversy stems from a June 15 call intended to defuse escalating border tensions with Cambodia. During the call, Paetongtarn, 38, referred to Hun Sen as “uncle”, and criticised a Thai army commander, a red line in a country where the military has significant clout. She has apologised and said her remarks were a negotiating tactic.

The leaked conversation triggered outrage and has left Paetongtarn’s coalition with a razor-thin majority, with a key party abandoning the alliance and expected to soon seek a no-confidence vote in parliament, as thousands of demonstrators demand the premier resign.

“I will let the process take its course,” a downcast Paetongtarn told reporters on Monday. “If you are asking whether I am worried, I am.”

If Paetongtarn is suspended, power will pass to her deputy, Phumtham Wechayachai.

The 38-year-old Paetongtarn took office less than a year ago but has been badly weakened by the Cambodia controversy.

Thailand’s king on Tuesday approved Paetongtarn’s cabinet reshuffle after her allies quit. She has appointed herself as culture minister.

Meanwhile, Thaksin, the 75-year-old family patriarch and billionaire twice elected leader in the early 2000s, appeared at a Bangkok criminal court to face accusations of breaching strict lese-majeste laws used to shield Thailand’s king from criticism.

The allegations stem from a 2015 interview he gave to South Korean media and he faces up to 15 years in jail after the trial, which is set to last for weeks, with a verdict not expected for at least a month after that.

A court official confirmed to the AFP news agency that the trial had started but media would not be allowed in.

Thaksin has denied the charges against him and repeatedly pledged allegiance to the crown.

Thaksin dodged jail and spent six months in hospital detention on medical grounds before being released on parole in February last year. The Supreme Court will this month scrutinise that hospital stay and could potentially send him back to jail.

Citing a recent arrest by immigration agents that bloodied a man in the unincorporated area of Valinda, Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis said she wants the county to explore a legal counterattack against what she described as the federal government’s “unconstitutional immigration enforcement practices.”

In a statement Saturday, Solis said that she plans to co-sponsor a motion at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting asking the county’s attorney to explore “all legal remedies available to the County to protect the civil rights of our residents and prevent federal law enforcement personnel from engaging in any unconstitutional or unlawful immigration enforcement.”

Such conduct, the motion says, includes the “unlawfully stopping, questioning or detaining individuals without reasonable suspicion, or arresting individuals without probable cause or a valid warrant.”

“As these immigration raids continue to terrorize our communities, I’m deeply disturbed by the forceful detainment of a man in unincorporated Valinda. This incident raises serious concerns about the conduct and legality of these actions, and demonstrates a violation of constitutional rights and due process,” Solis, whose district stretches from Eagle Rock to Pomona, said in a statement.

The Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on undocumented immigrants, the motion says, has sown widespread fear throughout the region and emptied out normally bustling public spaces, with people “avoiding going to work or visiting grocery stores and restaurants, skipping medical appointments.”

This has had a “tremendous negative impact” on not only the county’s economy, but also its “ability to provide for the health and welfare of our residents,” according to the motion.

The L.A. City Council introduced a similar motion earlier this month seeking to prohibit federal agents from carrying out unconstitutional stops, searches or arrests of city residents.

Federal officials have said their agents are defending themselves against increasingly hostile crowds, which in some cases are interfering with arrests.

Top officials, such as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have argued that the government’s raids are targeting “criminals that have been out on our street far too long.” A recent Times analysis suggested that the majority of those who were arrested in early June were not convicted criminals, however.

For weeks, social media has been flooded with videos of federal agents, their faces often shrouded by masks, violently arresting bystanders who are filming their actions, dragging a taco stand vendor by her arm and tossing smoke bombs into a crowd of angry onlookers. One widely circulated clip showed a military-style vehicle accompanying federal law enforcement officers during an apparent raid at a home in Compton earlier this month — part of what critics have called an alarming escalation in tactics.

Footage reviewed by The Times shows a person in the turret of the vehicle pointing what appears to be a less-lethal projectile launcher downward, but it’s unclear whether any shots were fired.

In her statement, Solis cited another federal operation that was at the center of a viral video.

That footage, shot by a bystander and obtained by ABC 7, shows federal agents in tactical vests and masks smashing the windows of a large white pickup truck before apparently pulling out a man from inside.

Several agents are later seen kneeling on top of the man who is bleeding from an apparent head wound, even as a crowd of onlookers demand that the man be released. In one clip, an agent is shown pushing the man’s face into the pavement.

The amount of money that the city of Los Angeles pays annually for police misconduct, trip and falls, and other lawsuits has ballooned, rising from $64 million a decade ago to $254 million last year and $289 million this fiscal year.

The reasons are complicated, ranging from aging sidewalks to juries’ tendency to award larger judgments to possible shifts in legal strategy at the city attorney’s office to an increase in the sheer number of lawsuits against the city.

The biggest chunk of payouts over the past five years were for “dangerous conditions” — lawsuits singling out faulty city infrastructure, such as broken elevators — at 32%, followed by civil rights violations and unlawful uses of force at 18%, and traffic collisions involving city vehicles also at 18%.

City officials have cited the legal payouts as a significant factor in a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025-26 that was closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who took office in December 2022, heads the office that defends the city against lawsuits.

In an interview with The Times and public appearances throughout the city, Feldstein Soto cited a backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts were barely moving, that were settled or went to trial in recent years.

“Structured settlements” negotiated by her predecessor, Mike Feuer, which are paid out annually rather than in one lump sum, have also contributed to the tab, she said.

Feldstein Soto also said she believes juries are increasingly antagonistic to city governments, resulting in larger verdicts.

Feuer said in an interview that the city was entering into structured settlements before he took office, and he does not believe he increased their use.

To explain the rise in legal liability payouts during his tenure — from about $40 million in 2013 to about $91 million in 2022 — Feuer cited a lack of investment in city infrastructure like streets and sidewalks during the 2008 financial crisis.

In public appearances, Feldstein Soto has sometimes blamed plaintiffs for trying to get financial compensation for what she characterized as risky behavior or interpersonal disputes.

Speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association earlier this year, she said that two types of lawsuits — “dangerous conditions” lawsuits and those brought by city employees over working conditions — are ripe for abuse. Some employees who sue the city simply don’t like their bosses, Feldstein Soto said, citing a lawsuit by an LAPD captain, Stacey Vince, who alleged that higher-ups retaliated against her after she complained about her boss. Vince was awarded $10.1 million by a jury, and the city subsequently settled the case for just under $6 million.

Feldstein Soto also described one man who sued the city as an “idiot.” The man was riding his electric scooter without a helmet, Feldstein Soto said, when he crashed on an uneven sidewalk and into a nearby tree, suffering a traumatic brain injury.

According to Feldstein Soto, taxpayers ultimately pay the price for these lawsuits.

“Please understand that every dollar you award is your money,” she said.

The number of lawsuits filed against the city has risen each year since the pandemic, from 1,131 in 2021 to 1,560 in 2024.

At the same time, the average amount the city pays per case has increased dramatically, from under $50,000 in 2022 to $132,180 in 2024. A contributing factor is the increase in payouts of least $1 million, with 17 such cases in 2022 and 39 in 2024. (The city counts settlements or jury verdicts in the fiscal year they are paid out, not when the dollar amount is decided.)

From July 2024 to March 2025, the city paid $1 million or more in 51 lawsuits.

Feldstein Soto said these “nuclear verdicts” cut deep into the city budget and could raise payouts for similar cases in the future.

Total annual payouts in police misconduct cases jumped from $15 million in 2020 to $50 million in 2024. Dangerous conditions cases rose from around $41 million in 2020 to about $84 million in 2024.

Earlier this year, the city paid $21 million to plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits related to a botched LAPD bomb squad fireworks detonation that injured more than 20 people and displaced many residents.

Also this year, the city paid out a $17.7-million verdict to the family of a man with mental health issues killed by an off-duty LAPD officer.

This coming fiscal year, the city increased its allocation for liability payouts from about $87 million to $187 million — far less than what it has been paying in recent years — out of a $14-billion budget.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s public works committee, said the rising payouts stem in part from the city’s long-term lack of investment in infrastructure. The city spent about 10% of its overall budget on streets and other public works last year — substantially less than it spent on police, said Hernandez, who favors a smaller LAPD.

“As a city, we don’t invest in the maintenance of our city,” she said. “I have felt like I’ve been screaming into the void about some of these things.”

In one lawsuit paid out this year, the city agreed to give $3 million to a man who tripped over a slightly uneven sidewalk and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last April, the city reached a $21-million settlement with a man whose skull was broken by a street lamp part that fell on him. The city had gone to trial, with a jury awarding the man $22 million, but the parties eventually settled for the slightly lower amount.

“I believe the driving force is the delays and lack of maintenance of the city that has caused an increase in such incidents,” said Arash Zabetian, a lawyer for the man hit by the streetlight.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys say that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies are contributing to the rising liability costs. They assert that she is taking more cases to trial, resulting in larger verdicts than if she had settled.

Matthew McNicholas, an attorney who often sues the city on behalf of police officers, said he recently went to trial in five cases and won all of them, for a total payout of more than $40 million.

He would have been happy to settle all five cases for a total of less than $10 million, he said.

One of the lawsuits, which ended with a $13-million verdict, was filed by two male officers accused of drawing a penis on a suspect’s abdomen. The officers alleged that higher-ups did not cast the same suspicion on their female colleagues.

In another of the lawsuits, a whistleblower alleged that he was punished for highlighting problems in the LAPD Bomb Detection K-9 Section. A jury also awarded him $13 million.

“It’s not a tactic to say we’re going to play hardball. It’s just stupid,” McNicholas said. “I am frustrated because she goes and blames my clients and runaway juries for her problems.”

Greg Smith, another plaintiffs’ attorney, said he has also noticed a tendency at Feldstein Soto’s office to push cases to trial.

“Everything is a fight,” Smith said. “I have been suing the city for 30 years, and this has been the worst administration with respect to trying to settle cases.”

Feldstein Soto said her office settles “every case we can.”

“It’s in nobody’s interest to go to trial. It’s a waste of resources,” she said. “But we will not settle cases where we don’t think we’re liable or where the demand is unreasonable.”

To stem the flood of large payouts, Feldstein Soto is looking to Sacramento for help, proposing a bill that would cap lawsuits against California cities at $1 million or three times the economic losses caused by an incident, whichever is greater. Caps on damages exist already in 38 states, according to Feldstein Soto’s office.

She has yet to find a state legislator to sponsor the bill.

In the summer of 2021, Priscilla Presley seemed to be riding high.

The ex-wife of the King of Rock ’n’ Roll had appeared at Graceland during the annual Elvis Week celebration and later hosted a three-day festival at the famous manse extolling the virtues of elegant southern living. Then there were the highly anticipated upcoming biopics: director Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” and Sofia Coppola’s “Priscilla” based on her 1985 memoir, for which she served as an executive producer.

Privately, however, it was a difficult time for the actress. Priscilla was mourning the passing of her mother, just a year after her grandson, Benjamin Keough, the only son of her daughter Lisa Marie Presley, had committed suicide at 27. Adding to her personal woes, Elvis’ former bride was in a serious financial hole, as court filings would later claim.

Then she met Brigitte Kruse, a flamboyant, fifth-generation auctioneer and self-styled philanthropist who specialized in high-profile celebrity memorabilia, royal objects, estates and fine jewelry sales. In 2017, Kruse gained a measure of renown when she sold an abandoned private plane known as the “lost jet” once owned by Elvis for $498,000.

After the pair were introduced, they launched a joint venture that would cash in on Priscilla’s famous name, image and likeness through her paid public appearances and other projects.

Within months of their initial meeting, Priscilla began lending her name to some of Kruse’s online Elvis memorabilia auctions with GWS Auctions Inc., based in Agoura Hills.

Priscilla Presley at a 2014 event held at Graceland in Memphis.

(Lance Murphey / Associated Press)

Less than two years later, their partnership was in tatters, with the two women trading bitter allegations in dueling lawsuits.

Priscilla, 80, called Kruse, who was half her age, a “con-artist and pathological liar” who had forced her into a “form of indentured servitude,” leading her into signing away 80% of her income and conning her out of more than $1 million, according to the fraud and elder abuse lawsuit she filed against Kruse and her business associates in Los Angeles last year.

Kruse, who did not respond to requests for comment, has disputed Priscilla Presley’s claims, depicting herself in court filings as her financial savior who faced retaliation after she sued Priscilla for breach of contract a year earlier.

The litigation is the latest in a string of legal battles that Priscilla and the Presley heirs have been involved in since Elvis died nearly 50 years ago, leaving a financial legacy as messy and fraught as the King’s life.

While the storied Presley family has forever been enshrined in celebrity as America’s reigning pop culture icons, Elvis’ estate has long been the spigot of his heirs’ fortunes and misfortunes, spilling out from the gates of Graceland.

As Joel Weinshanker, managing partner of Elvis Presley Enterprises once said about another dispute involving the estate:

“People have been trying to take from Elvis since Elvis was Elvis.”

Inheriting a messy estate

When 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu met Elvis Presley in 1959, he was already Elvis. She was the stepdaughter of an U.S. Air Force officer, living in West Germany where the rocker, then 24, was stationed during his military service.

Four years later, Priscilla moved to Memphis and stepped inside the gilded cage of Elvis’ fame. In 1967, the couple married in Las Vegas. With the birth of their daughter Lisa Marie nine months later, a rock ‘n’ roll dynasty was born.

Lisa Marie was born in 1968, nine months after Elvis and Priscilla married in Las Vegas.

(Associated Press)

But life inside of the irresistible mythology of Elvis proved stifling. He was mostly on tour and in a haze of drugs and affairs. At 28, Priscilla divorced the rocker, but not his stardom.

She built an agile career out of the ashes of their romance. Priscilla went on to become an actress with a recurring role in the 1980s CBS hit series “Dallas,” starred in several of the “Naked Gun” movies and appeared in other television shows; she also authored books and launched a fragrance.

But she never strayed far from the buzzy afterlife of Elvis’ orbit.

When Elvis died in 1977, their daughter Lisa Marie was just nine and his father, Vernon Presley, took the reins as executor of his estate. After Vernon died in 1979, Priscilla, a successor trustee, assumed the role of primary manager.

Despite the celebrated influence and global popularity of Elvis, who was estimated to have earned anywhere between $100 million to $1 billion, his estate was in shambles — worth only about $5 million. Graceland’s costly maintenance and massive IRS bills were fast depleting Lisa Marie’s inheritance.

The poor state of affairs was due in part to Elvis’ profligate spending. He was known to lavish Cadillacs and jewelry on friends, many of whom were also on his payroll. But his fortune’s wane was exacerbated by the abusive control that his longtime manager Col. Tom Parker exerted over his business affairs.

Elvis performing in Honolulu in 1973.

(Pål Grandlund)

The cigar-chomping Parker, who died in 1997, was a former carnival barker and a compulsive gambler. He wasn’t, however, a colonel — the Dutch-born “Parker’s” real name was Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk.

During his time as Elvis’ manager, Parker took commissions as high as 50%, and frequently cut deals that enriched himself at the rocker’s expense.

Four years before Elvis died, Parker sold off his back catalog to RCA for $5.4 million (with Parker taking $2.6 million and Elvis $2.8 million), depriving the estate of untold millions in royalties.

In 1981, the co-executors of Elvis’ estate (an attorney separately represented Lisa Marie), sued Parker for massive fraud and mismanagement, claiming he received the “lion’s share” of Elvis’ income, even after his death. The parties eventually reached an out-of-court settlement.

Reviving Graceland

But the years of profound missteps and mismanagement left Elvis’ estate facing the prospect of bankruptcy and worse, having to sell Graceland. Priscilla brought in a team of financial advisors and lawyers who engineered a stunning financial turnaround.

In 1981, the Elvis Presley Trust created Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. to conduct business and manage the trust’s assets, including Graceland, which was opened to the public the following year. Now a National Historic Landmark, the tourist shrine generates an estimated $10 million annually.

By the time Lisa Marie inherited her father’s estate upon her 25th birthday in 1993, the estate had rebounded. Two decades later, Graceland, along with the merchandising of Elvis’ image and managing his music royalties, was worth upward of $500 million.

Elvis on the grounds of his Graceland estate circa 1957.

(Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)

Then, in 2005, Elvis’ estate changed hands. Lisa Marie agreed to sell 85% of EPE’s assets, including her father’s likeness rights, to music entrepreneur Robert F.X. Sillerman and his company CKX Inc. for $114 million.

Under the deal, Lisa Marie retained 15% of the trust and received $50 million in cash as well as $26 million in CKX common and preferred stock. She also retained sole ownership of Graceland and her father’s personal items. Priscilla received $6.5 million for the use of the family name, Fortune reported.

But in 2013, CKX Inc. sold its majority interest in the estate to the intellectual property firm Authenic Brands Group for a reported $145 million.

The problems that had long trailed the estate surfaced again five years later.

This time it was Lisa Marie who alleged she had been duped. Then 50 and in the middle of divorcing her fourth husband Michael Lockwood, the father of her twin girls, she sued her business manager Barry Siegel. She claimed that as a result of his “reckless and negligent mismanagement” the trust had dwindled to just $14,000 and was left with $500,000 in credit card debt.

Lisa Marie Presley in her childhood bedroom at Graceland in 2012.

(Lance Murphey/AP)

Siegel denied the allegations and countersued, claiming that she had “squandered” her fortune as a result of her “excessive spending.” At the time, court filings related to her divorce from Lockwood, revealed that she was $16.7 million in debt.

A mother, daughter feud

When Lisa Marie died suddenly in January 2023 at the age of 54, another tense legal battle erupted over the estate and the trust Lisa Marie had set up.

Within weeks of her death, Priscilla went to court to challenge an amendment that removed her as a trustee, making her granddaughter, the actress Riley Keough, sole trustee. Priscilla’s lawyers argued that the signature was “inconsistent” with Lisa Marie’s handwriting.

The matter was settled five months later. Keough was named sole trustee. In exchange for stepping down, Priscilla received a $1-million lump sum payment paid out of Lisa Marie’s $25-million life insurance policy and was made a special advisor for a trust relating to EPE, for which she would receive $100,000 annually for 10 years or until her death.

Priscilla was also granted permission to be buried in the Meditation Garden at Graceland near Elvis’ gravesite and to be given a memorial service on the property.

‘Dame’ Kruse

By spring 2023, as Priscilla resolved her dispute with her daughter’s estate, Kruse’s presence and influence in her personal and business affairs deepened.

When they met, Priscilla was in her mid-70s and her main source of income derived from her paid personal appearances. Kruse’s suit described Presley’s celebrity as “a mere shadow of what it once was, and her earning potential was only a fraction of what it previously was.”

Moreover, she claimed that Priscilla was 60 days away from financial disaster, and drowning under $700,000 in outstanding tax debts.

Then 39, Kruse was publicly portrayed as a success, active in the worlds of celebrity and philanthropy and who spoke multiple languages. She highlighted her advocacy for children with autism and AIDS research; donating money to related causes and delivering toys to orphans in global conflict zones with her husband, Vahe Sislyan.

On social media and in news releases, Kruse showcased her activities and accolades, posting images alongside various marquee names such as the pop star Gwen Stefani and President Trump and his wife Melania.

In 2016, seven years after Kruse and her husband founded GWS, she was the first female auctioneer to make it into the Guinness Book of World Records (for selling the largest abandoned world property). Kruse formally added the honorific title “Dame” to her name after a member of the royal Italian Medici family conferred the title of Cavaliere, a kind of knighthood, on her.

In media interviews, Kruse liked to say that the sale of Elvis’ “lost jet” had seared her reputation as the rocker’s memorabilia dealer. Over the years she was prolific, selling a number of his items, including the Smith & Wesson that he was said to have purchased in 1973 after he was attacked onstage in Las Vegas.

According to Priscilla, she first met Kruse in June 2021 after the auctioneer texted her saying she’d like to meet for lunch.

They dined at Gucci Osteria in Beverly Hills followed by numerous other get-togethers in Los Angeles. Kruse introduced her to her “business partner,” Kevin Fialko, “an investor, experienced businessman, and financial expert,” who “would help Kruse get my financial affairs in order,” according to a declaration submitted by Priscilla.

Dame Brigitte Kruse and Priscilla Presley at an event in Orlando in 2023.

(Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)

“When I first met Brigitte Kruse, she wanted to involve me in her auction business,” she wrote in her March declaration.

From there, Kruse “quickly immersed herself” in Priscilla’s life, “often sending her multiple text messages a day, and “telling her how much she loved her and admired her,” according to her elder abuse complaint. She also talked up her credentials, lineage and expertise in the auction business as well as her “connections to celebrities.”

In September 2021, Priscilla participated in one of GWS’ online auctions that featured a private lunch with her and Kruse, with a portion of the proceeds going to a charity. A number of Elvis items were also auctioned off, such as the white eyelet jumpsuit cape he wore during his 1972 performances at Madison Square Garden and a jar of his hair.

“She’s just such a wealth of experience and knowledge. You don’t study and learn about Elvis without learning about Priscilla as well. Their names are synonymous,” Kruse told People.

The following year, Kruse’s GWS conducted an online auction billed as “The Lost Jewelry Collection of Elvis Presley and Colonel Tom Parker,” including watches, rings and cuff links that Elvis had bought or commissioned for his manager.

Although she didn’t own any of the items, Priscilla provided “letters of recollection” vouching for her personal historical memories of many of them, according to the auction’s online catalog notes.

“There is so much product out there that is not authentic at all and that worries me,” she said in a video with Reuters after viewing the collection. “I want to know for sure that that is going to go to someone who is going to care for it, love it.”

By January 2023, Priscilla and Kruse agreed to set up several companies to exploit Priscilla’s name and image and to bolster Kruse’s Elvis memorabilia auctions through Priscilla’s written “recollections.”

The terms of their agreement gave Kruse 51% and Presley 49% of Priscilla Presley Partners LLC, according to court filings.

Soon after, however, Priscilla alleged Kruse and Fialko “expanded the scope of their interest in my affairs, seeking to inject themselves into every area of my life.”

They gained her trust and isolated her from key advisors, setting the stage for “a meticulously planned and abhorrent scheme,” intended “to drain her of every last penny she had,” Presley alleged in her lawsuit.

Presley says that she was “fraudulently induced” to sign documents without the opportunity to review them in advance or “advised as to the nature of the paperwork.”

The contracts gave Kruse a controlling interest in her name, image and likeness in perpetuity. They also granted her power of attorney over Priscilla’s affairs and healthcare and named Kruse a trustee on her personal and family trusts, according to Priscilla’s declaration.

Along with Fialko, Kruse closed Priscilla’s bank accounts and opened new ones “in an effort to transfer the funds of Presley’s various personal, business and trust accounts.”

Priscilla claims she also signed a five-year lease on a house in Orlando, Fla., owned by Sislyan, that she never asked for or wanted.

Further, Priscilla alleges in a declaration that Kruse and Fialko leaned on Coppola to get a credit on the biopic and diverted $120,000 of money Presley earned from the film into their own accounts.

When Lisa Marie died, Priscilla contended that Kruse and Fialko improperly inserted themselves into her legal dispute over her daughter’s trust, she said in her complaint. They also had the “audacity” to demand that they were allowed “ to attend any memorial service for Presley in the future,” she added.

By August 2023, Priscilla severed ties with Kruse.

A lawyer representing Kruse and Fialko did not respond to a request for comment.

A few months later, Kruse, through Priscilla Presley Partners, sued for breach of contract, saying Priscilla asked Kruse to take over her business affairs, requiring her to “devote her attention full-time to managing Priscilla’s life” in order to “monetize various aspects of her [Presley’s] life.”

Kruse and Fialko maintained they worked tirelessly to keep Priscilla from “financial ruin and public embarrassment,” and that she fully understood the agreements she was signing.

Meanwhile, others began to question the authenticity around some of GWS’s Elvis sales.

When GWS held another online auction of Elvis memorabilia in January 2023 that included a one-of-a-kind grommet jacket that Elvis wore in 1972, it drew the attention of Elvis Presley Enterprises.

“We know there was only one made, and guess what? We have it in our archives,” Weinshanker, EPE’s managing partner, told NBC News, last July.

GWS said the claims were unsubstantiated: “GWS stands behind everything that it sells, and categorically denies tracking in fake or inauthentic items attributed to Elvis Presley, or otherwise.”

The tensions escalated last November, after GWS announced another “lost” collection auction of Elvis and Col. Parker memorabilia, comprising 400 items.

Priscilla Presley, her daughter Lisa Marie and grandaughters: Riley Keough, Harper Lockwood and Finley Lockwood at an event honoring the Presley family at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles in 2022.

(Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

The cache of documents included telegrams Elvis and Parker sent to Frank Sinatra, the Beatles and others, handwritten notes and Elvis’ signed 1956 contract with the New Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas, included in the auction, that rang alarm bells.

The estate’s lawyers in December sent a cease and desist letter to GWS, claiming the listed auction items were the property of Graceland and demanded their immediate return. Nonetheless, GWS went forward with the sale, contending in a letter it had acted appropriately.
,
On Dec. 24, the estate sued GWS, Kruse and two others, claiming the items belonged to Graceland and were “improperly and illegally offered for sale at auction.” They sought to recover at least 74 “irreplaceable documents,” and alleged that the defendants were in “possession of perhaps thousands more such items.”

According to the suit, the allegedly “stolen” items were part of an enormous trove that the estate acquired from Parker in 1990 for $1.25 million. GWS has denied that it had engaged in “any wrongdoing whatsoever.”

Elvis’ estate alleges that a former Parker employee named Greg McDonald “took possession” of the documents that should have been turned over to Graceland after Parker died.

Instead, when McDonald died in 2024, his widow Sherry and son Thomas McDonald, who are named as defendants, “took possession of the Property and then delivered it to Brigitte Kruse for sale at GWS,” the lawsuit states.

The suit further asserted that Kruse was aware of the circumstances in which Greg McDonald obtained the items before putting them up for sale. In an email thread between Kruse and Graceland’s longtime archivist in 2021, included in the filings, Kruse wrote that she had a video of her in conversation with McDonald in which he “admits to knowing of the theft,” in regards to the documents.

Over 600,000 visitors go to Graceland each year, earning the estate an estimated $10 million annually.

(Raymond Boyd/Getty Images)

An attorney for Kruse disputed the claim, saying in a statement that when she had informed the Elvis estate of the existence of McDonald’s collection in 2021, “they did not make a claim to Mr. McDonald alleging that the collection was not rightfully his.”

GWS “never maintained care, custody or control of any of the items” that were auctioned,” the statement read. “We will continue to respect the judicial process and the outcome of the ongoing litigation.”

In a statement to The Times on behalf of himself and his mother, Thomas McDonald said: “The property in which Graceland and Elvis Presley Enterprises are asserting ownership has been in my family’s possession for over forty years as gifts from the Colonel. I am committed to resolving this dispute and vindicating my family’s rights as expediently and fairly as possible.”

Lawyers for EPE and Graceland Holdings did not respond to a request for comment.

As the various lawsuits were unfolding, last April, GWS Auctions was suspended by the Franchise Tax board in California, effectively losing its standing to operate legally due to noncompliance with tax requirements.

In court filings, Kruse and her co-defendants are cited as saying that GWS is “defunct.” However, GWS’ website remains active and currently lists the results of its most recent auction: the Artifacts of Hollywood and Music sale held on June 7 (that included the racing helmet Elvis wore in “Viva Las Vegas,” that sold for $6,500).

Last month, Elvis’ former wife scored a legal win when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a motion by Kruse and her business associates to temporarily put a hold on the elder abuse lawsuit in an effort to move the litigation to Florida.

In his ruling, Judge Mark H. Epstein expressed frustration with the defendants’ “never-ending series of motions,” underscoring that this was not a a contract-based case. Presley “is suing these defendants for fraud and elder abuse, an aspect of which was allegedly bamboozling her into signing those agreements in the first place.”

The ongoing clash with Kruse has left Priscilla “devastated,” said her attorney, Wayne Harman. “We look forward to the court holding defendants fully accountable for their actions,” he said in a statement.

Amid the fallout with Kruse, the estate faced another controversy.

A mysterious company, Naussany Investments & Private Lending, presented documents claiming that Lisa Marie had borrowed $3.8 million and put up Graceland as collateral but had failed to repay the loan before she died.

But it was an elaborate scam, according to federal authorities, who in August arrested a Missouri woman, Lisa Jeanine Findley, alleging she used fake documents to “steal the family’s ownership interest in Graceland” and attemped to put it up for sale.

In February, Findley pleaded guilty to mail fraud for her role in the scheme and is scheduled to be sentenced this week. She faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

June 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump extended a pause on legislation banning TikTok from operating in the United States a third time, extending it for a further 90 days to allow time for a deal to split the firm’s U.S. business from its Chinese parent company.

The White House said Tuesday that Trump would sign a fresh executive order this week instructing the Justice Department not to take measures or impose fines on TikTok or tech providers such as Google and Apple for allowing the video-sharing app to remain on their platforms.

“As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark. This extension will last 90 days, which the Administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure,” said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

The previous 75-day extension from April, which was due to expire on Thursday, came after his administration agreed a deal, according to CBS News, to spin off TikTok’s American operation into a majority U.S.-owned entity.

However, that deal was derailed by Trump’s imposition of severe tariffs on China with parent ByteDance saying Beijing would not authorize the sale while the dispute over tariffs and trade was ongoing — although TikTok maintained the deal was not finalized and approval from Beijing was a given.

Trump said Tuesday that he was confident that Beijing would give its blessing.

“I think President Xi [Jinping] will ultimately approve it.”

A convert to TikTok after trying to ban it in his first 2017- 2021 term, Trump acknowledges security concerns over the personal data of American users ending up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party that prompted Democrats to join in passing a Republican bill requiring TikTok to sell by Jan. 19 this year, or be shutdown.

The latest extension takes that deadline to mid-September, almost 18 months after the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was signed into law by then-President Joe Biden in April 2024.

THE mother of a 21-year-old student who was murdered by a vile sex offender has slammed a ridiculous legal loophole that allows pervs to dodge the sex offenders register.

Lisa Squire’s daughter Libby was killed in Hull in 2019 by a prolific sex offender leaving Lisa heartbroken.

5

5

Lisa was horrified to learn that men who commit indecent exposure can avoid being put on the sex offenders register.

The loophole that prevents pervs from being put on the register means those who commit indecent exposure can avoid being monitored by police.

Pawel Relowicz, the vile sex offender who murdered Libby, had a history of indecent exposure.

Evil police officer Wayne Couzens who murdered Sarah Everard in 2021 also had a history of indecent exposure.

Ministers have been pushing for stronger legislation with mounting evidence showing those who commit indecent exposure go on to commit violent offences.

A landmark Bill making sure offenders can’t slip through the net is set to make its way back through the commons this week.

Libby’s mother, Lisa, branded the Bill Libby’s Law Part One and told The Mirror: “It’s a perfect legacy for Libby.

“Her death was so preventable, it shouldn’t have happened, but she’s making a difference.

“If we can learn from her death that’s perfect, it makes it a bit less senseless.”

Current laws require prosecutors to prove an offender caused alarm or distress with their actions to get a conviction for exposure.

Commonly offenders are charged with outraging public decency instead which does not result in them being added to the sex offenders register and allows them to dodge police monitoring.

Soon after Libby’s killer Relowicz was arrested Lisa was told by cops that he had a history of committing sexual offences.

The evil killer plead guilty to nine sexual offences unrelated to Libby’s murder, including voyeurism and outraging public decency.

Lisa said: “If more people had come forward and reported their experiences, and if police had been able to join the dots there might have been a different situation.”

Since the horror loss of her daughter Lisa has campaigned for victims to report non-contact sex offences to police, saying doing so will prevent more cases like her daughter’s.

5

5

The distraught mum was shocked to learn that offenders charged with outraging public decency can avoid being put on the register.

She said: “I never even imagined that they wouldn’t be. When I found out they weren’t I thought it was ridiculous. These are people that we should be watching.”

Lisa has demanded compulsory treatment programmes to stop those charged with indecent exposure’s behaviour escalating to more violent crimes and called for jail terms for those convicted of non-contact sex offences like exposure and voyeurism.

She reportedly believes her daughters death could have been prevented if more serious action was taken against vile Relowicz at an earlier stage.

Lisa believes that lives could be saved with the loophole closed and has campaigned tirelessly to make that a reality.

The Mirror reveal data showing the number of indecent exposure cases reported to police has skyrocketed since 2019.

Data from 37 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales shows a 15% rise in five years, while arrests have gone up by around 35%.

Dame Diana Johnson, Labour’s Policing Minister, told MPs last year that in five years almost 250 men found guilty of indecent exposure were later found guilty of rape.

She told the Commons: “Indecent exposure and non-contact sexual offences are gateway crimes that are still not taken seriously enough.”

The Home Office has now commissioned research into the link between non-contact sex offences and more violent crimes.

A National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesman said: “Sexual exposure is an incredibly serious crime which can be invasive and distressing for victims.

“We have been working hard to improve our response to sexual exposure and other non-contact sexual offences.”

Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones said: “Exposure is a degrading and cowardly crime, which can often escalate into serious offending.

“We’re strengthening the law to bolster protection for victims, meaning offenders with a broader range of motivations, such as the intention to cause humiliation or for the purpose of sexual gratification, can be prosecuted – and added to the sex offender register where necessary.

“I am grateful to Libby’s family, and other victims and survivors, who have bravely campaigned for change in this area.”

5

June 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s sweeping tariffs given the green light to stay in place through July by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The court on Tuesday granted a request by the Trump administration to put a pause on the ruling of a lower court that blocked the tariffs pending appeal, which leaves the tariffs in effect until at least July 31 when the appellate judges will hear oral arguments in the case.

“Having considered the traditional stay factors,” wrote the judges who participated in the ruling, “the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances.”

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled last month that several of the tariffs put into action are illegal, after a coalition of 12 states with Democratic leaders sued the Trump administration over the duties.

The Federal Circuit Court judges did not give any reasons behind their decision to keep the tariffs active, nor did they sign the ruling.

The mandate that the DoT challenged was a key part of former US President Joe Biden’s plan to address climate change.

The United States Department of Transportation (DoT) has declared that former President Joe Biden’s administration exceeded its authority by assuming a high uptake of electric vehicles in calculating fuel economy rules.

With that declaration on Friday, the DoT paved the way for looser fuel standards and published the “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program” (CAFE) rule. A future separate rule from the administration of President Donald Trump will revise the fuel economy requirements.

“We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States. The previous administration illegally used CAFE standards as an electric vehicle mandate,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement.

The department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in writing its rule last year under Biden, had “assumed significant numbers of EVs would continue to be produced regardless of the standards set by the agency, in turn increasing the level of standards that could be considered maximum feasible,” it said Friday.

A shift away from Biden policies 

In January, Duffy signed an order directing NHTSA to rescind fuel economy standards issued under Biden for the 2022-2031 model years that had aimed to drastically reduce fuel use for cars and trucks.

In a release last year, the DoT, then led by Pete Buttigieg, put in place a required fuel economy to increase by 2 percent for cars made between 2027 and 2031.

At the time, the DoT said it would help save consumers upwards of $600 on gas every year. It was also part of the Biden administration’s plan to address climate change.

“These new fuel economy standards will save our nation billions of dollars, help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and make our air cleaner for everyone. Americans will enjoy the benefits of this rule for decades to come,” then NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said at the time.

In June 2024, the NHTSA said it would hike CAFE requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon (4.67 litres per 100km) by 2031 from 39.1mpg currently for light-duty vehicles.

The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, cutting fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2bn.

Late on Thursday, Senate Republicans proposed eliminating fines for failures to meet CAFE rules as part of a wide-ranging tax bill, the latest move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles.

Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7m in civil penalties for failing to meet US fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400m for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2m in penalties for 2016 and 2017.

Stellantis said it supported the Senate Republican proposal “to provide relief while DoT develops its proposal to reset the CAFE standards … The standards are out of sync with the current market reality, and immediate relief is necessary to preserve affordability and freedom of choice.”

GM declined to comment.

Ruling says those deported from US under 1798 law have right to challenge their removal and that Trump administration must help.

A federal judge in the United States has ruled that Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador under an obscure 1798 law must be given the chance to challenge their removals and detention. 

The ruling on Wednesday by Judge James Boasberg is the latest setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to quickly expel alleged gang members from the US without due process.

Trump initially invoked the wartime law in March, arguing that the presence of the Tren de Aragua gang in the US represented an invasion.

Trump’s use of the law to fast-track deportations was quickly blocked by Boasberg, but not before two planes carrying 238 deportees had already departed the US for El Salvador. The Trump administration refused the judge’s order to turn the plane around.

Boasberg has since said he has found probable cause to believe the administration committed contempt of court.

Upon landing in El Salvador, the deportees were locked up in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre, known as the CECOT prison, as part of a deal with the Trump administration.

In Wednesday’s order, Boasberg wrote that there was “significant evidence” indicating that many of the individuals imprisoned in El Salvador are not connected to Tren de Aragua.

They “thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations”, Boasberg said.

Court documents previously indicated that some of the men may have been deported based only on their tattoos or clothing.

Boasberg wrote that the administration “plainly deprived” the immigrants of a chance to challenge their removals before they were put on flights.

He ruled that their cases must now be given the right to be heard before a court, as they “would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process”.

“That process – which was improperly withheld – must now be afforded to them,” Boasberg wrote. “Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.”

The ruling did not expressly order the Trump administration to return the deported people to the US.

The US Supreme Court previously ruled that people deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be given a chance to challenge their removal, and it paused certain planned deportations that would have been conducted using the law.

A case currently being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to eventually make its way to the top court for a final decision.

Until then, various challenges have played out in lower courts, with three federal judges in New York, Texas and Colorado having so far ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is illegal. A fourth federal judge, in Pennsylvania, has ruled that Trump was within his powers to invoke the law.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to conduct a mass deportation of “criminal” non-citizens living in the US, but his efforts have been hampered by legal challenges and backlogged immigration courts.

Immigration advocates say that has led the administration to seek various means of fast-tracking deportations, including by circumventing due process.

WASHINGTON — President Trump may seek to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants who recently entered the United States under a two-year grant of parole, the Supreme Court decided Friday.

Over two dissents, the justices granted an emergency appeal and set aside rulings by judges in Boston who blocked Trump’s repeal of the parole policy adopted by the Biden administration.

That 2023 policy opened the door for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to apply for entry and a work authorization if they had a financial sponsor and could pass background checks. By the time Biden left office, 530,000 people from those countries had entered the U.S. under the program.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“The court plainly botched this,” Jackson said, adding that it should have kept the case on hold during the appeals.

It was the second time in two weeks that the justices upheld Trump’s authority to revoke a large-scale Biden administration policy that gave temporary legal status to some migrants.

The first revoked program gave temporary protected status to around 350,000 Venezuelans who were in this country and feared they could be sent home.

The parole policy allowed up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries to enter the country with temporary legal protection. Biden’s officials saw it as a way to reduce illegal border crossings and to provide a safe and legal pathway for carefully screened migrants.

The far-reaching policy was based on a modest-sounding provision of the immigration laws. It says the secretary of Homeland Security may “parole into United States temporarily … on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons any alien” who is seeking admission.

Upon taking office, Trump ordered an end to “all categorical parole programs.” In late March, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the parole protection would end in 30 days.

But last month, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked DHS’s “categorical” termination of the parole authority. The law said the government may grant parole on a “case-by-case basis,” she said, and that suggests it must be revoked on a case-by-case basis as well.

On May 5, the 1st Circuit Court in a 3-0 decision agreed that a “categorical termination” of parole appeared to be illegal.

Three days later, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed another emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing that a judge had overstepped her authority.

The parole authority is “purely discretionary” in the hands of the DHS secretary, he wrote, and the law bars judges from reviewing those decisions.

While the Biden administration “granted parole categorically to aliens” from four counties, he said the Boston-based judges blocked the new policy because it is “categorical.”

He accused the judges of “needlessly upending critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core Executive Branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.”

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the court to stand aside for now.

Granting the administration’s appeal “would cause an immense amount of needless human suffering,” they told the court.

They said the migrants “all came to the United States with the permission of the federal government after each individually applied through a U.S. financial sponsor, passed security and other checks while still abroad, and received permission to fly to an airport here at no expense to the government to request parole.”

“Some class members have been here for nearly two years; others just arrived in January,” they added.

In response, Sauer asserted the migrants had no grounds to complain. They “accepted parole with full awareness that the benefit was temporary, discretionary, and revocable at any time,” he said.

The Biden administration began offering temporary entry to Venezuelans in late 2022, then expanded the program a few months later to people from the other three countries.

In October of last year, the Biden administration announced that it would not offer renewals of parole and directed those immigrants to apply to other forms of relief, such as asylum or temporary protected status.

It’s unclear exactly how many people remained protected solely through the parole status and could now be targeted for deportation. It’s also not clear whether the administration will seek to deport many or most of these immigrants.

But parolees who recently tried to adjust their legal status have hit a roadblock.

In a Feb. 14 memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it was placing an administrative hold on all pending benefit requests filed by those under the parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, as well as a program for Ukrainians and another for family reunification.

The memo said USCIS needed to implement “additional vetting flags” to identify fraud, public safety or national security concerns.

“It’s going to force people into an impossible choice,” said Talia Inlender, deputy director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. Those who stay face potential detention and deportation, she said, while those who willingly leave the U.S. would be giving up on their applications.

The DHS memo said the government could extend the parole for some of them on a case-by-case basis. But Trump’s lawyers said migrants who were here less than two years could be deported without a hearing under the “expedited removal” provisions of the immigration laws.

Inlender said the government should not be allowed to strip people of lawfully granted legal status without sufficient reason or notice. Inlender, who defended the program against a challenge from Texas in 2023, said she expects swift individual legal challenges to the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal.

“So many people’s lives are on the line,” Inlender said. “These people did everything right — they applied through a lawful program, they were vetted. And to pull the rug out from under them in this way should be, I think, offensive to our own idea of what justice is in this country.”

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers this week condemned the Trump administration’s termination of humanitarian protections that have left a 4-year-old girl who is receiving critical medical treatment in Los Angeles vulnerable to deportation and death.

On Tuesday, The Times published the story of S.G.V., who has short bowel syndrome — a rare condition that prevents her body from completely absorbing nutrients. She and her parents received temporary permission to enter the U.S. legally through Tijuana in 2023.

In a letter Thursday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, 38 congressional Democrats, including California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, urged her to reconsider the termination of the family’s legal status.

“We believe this family’s situation clearly meets the need for humanitarian aid and urge you and this Administration to reconsider its decision,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is our duty to protect the sick, vulnerable, and defenseless.”

Last month, S.G.V.’s family, who now live in Bakersfield, received notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that their status had been terminated and that they had to leave the country immediately. Earlier this month, they applied again for humanitarian protections.

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the family is not actively in the deportation process and that their application is still being considered.

The girl’s physician, Dr. John Arsenault of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, wrote in a letter requested by her family that any interruption in her daily nutrition system “could be fatal within a matter of days.”

The story about S.G.V. drew swift public outcry. An online fundraiser for the girl’s care had amassed nearly $26,000 as of Thursday morning.

The letter to Noem was led by Reps. Luz Rivas (D-North Hollywood) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles). Rivas said state legislators and constituents messaged her about the family, asking what she could do to help.

While the family lives outside of Rivas’ district, which encompasses the north-central San Fernando Valley, she said it is her role as a California Democrat and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to speak up for immigrant constituents in districts where Republican representatives may not do so.

“That’s why we’re organizing as members of Congress,” Rivas said. “Without action from Secretary Noem and this administration, this little girl will die within days.”

In a post on X, Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) called the situation “heartbreaking.” Seeking to deport the girl despite her medical condition is “cruel and inexcusable,” Chu added.

In another X post, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) wrote: “Trump wants to deport a four-year-old who could die from a life-threatening medical condition if her treatment is interrupted. How does this cruelty make us a stronger nation?”

The family and their attorneys held a news conference Wednesday at the Koreatown office of the pro bono firm, Public Counsel. The lawyers explained that the equipment administered by the hospital to S.G.V. for home use is not available outside the U.S.

“If they deport us and they take away my daughter’s access to specialized medical care, she will die,” said Deysi Vargas.

Attorneys for the family noted that S.G.V. is not the only child affected in recent months by the Trump administration’s immigration policies. In an attempt to speed up arrests and deportations, they said, children are needlessly being swept up in the process.

Gina Amato Lough, directing attorney at Public Counsel, said the girl’s case “is a symbol of the recklessness of this administration’s deportation policies.”

“We’re seeing a pattern of cruelty and a violation of our most treasured rights and values,” said Amato Lough. “These are people coming to us for protection, and instead we’re sending them to die. That’s not justice, and it doesn’t make us any safer.”