Aug. 26 (UPI) — Three Secret Service employees have been put on administrative leave during an investigation into “potential misconduct,” the agency confirmed.
The three staffers are “non-law enforcement personnel,” including Chief of Communications Anthony Guglielmi and two others in the agency’s communications office, CNN, CBS News and The Hill reported. CNN first reported the investigation.
It isn’t clear what the “potential misconduct” was or why they were put on leave.
The employees lost their security clearances and access to work devices, which is common practice during internal investigations.
A Secret Service spokesperson said the investigation is being handled by the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
“The U.S. Secret Service is committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in fulfilling our zero-fail mission of protecting the President and other high-level government officials. Our critical work demands that our workforce maintain an unwavering commitment to duty, honesty, and courage in all aspects of their jobs. We will continue to pursue the level of excellence that is worthy of the mission which has been entrusted to us by the American people,” the spokesperson said.
On Tuesday, the Secret Service said it was “aware” of a video by Iran threatening Barron Trump’s life.
A week ago, the Secret Service launched a probe into a member of Vice President JD Vance’s security detail for allegedly leaking sensitive information.
President Donald Trump looks on as Secretary of Education Linda McMahon speaks during a back-to school event in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday. The event focused on education and the Trump administration’s education policies. Photo by Will Oliver/UPI | License Photo
A Los Angeles police officer who faced multiple felonies for recording his colleagues making racist, sexist and homophobic comments will now likely avoid jail time under a new agreement with prosecutors, Los Angeles County’s district attorney said Wednesday.
Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman announced he would reduce 16 felony eavesdropping counts against Officer Daniel Flores to misdemeanors, and that the case would likely resolve in court through a diversion agreement.
The announcement came after Hochman faced backlash for the decision to prosecute Flores, with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and even some of his own prosecutors criticizing the filing as “insane” and a deterrent for police looking to expose corruption and misconduct within their ranks.
The district attorney acknowledged the public reaction to the case as he spoke downtown Wednesday morning, and said he wanted to make “crystal clear” his intentions were to blunt illegal investigative practices by police, rather than discourage cops who want to report bad behavior.
“The message was not being clearly interpreted about us being protective of whistleblowers,” he said.
Flores’ attorney, ex-L.A. County prosecutor Alan Jackson, said he expected to request a diversion agreement for Flores in a downtown courtroom on Thursday.
“Following this disposition, 16 felonies will be dismissed with no plea, no punishment, and no record, because Daniel Flores told the troubling truth about what he heard inside his own department. As the investigators themselves concluded, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in this open-plan LAPD office,” he said. “That isn’t eavesdropping, it’s being a witness. Mr. Flores has committed no crime.”
If a judge accepts a diversion agreement, Flores would have to satisfy certain terms and conditions for about a year. If he does so, the case would be dismissed.
An LAPD spokesman referred all questions to the district attorney’s office. While misdemeanor prosecutions in Los Angeles are normally handled by the city attorney’s office, the D.A. can keep possession of the case because it was initially filed as a felony, according to a district attorney’s office spokesman.
Flores made more than 100 recordings of his colleagues in the Los Angeles Police Department’s recruitment division last year,capturing other officers making an array of racist, homophobic and sexist remarks. Comments included a joke about a legendary L.A. Dodgers pitcher who was Latino dying because he “ate too many tacos,” and referring to stereotypes about Black people enjoying eating watermelon and playing basketball. One officer was recorded calling a young LAPD recruit “rapeable,” according to court records.
If convicted of the original charges, Flores could have faced up to 13 years in prison.
California is a “two-party consent” state, meaning it is a crime for someone to record a conversation without the permission of other participants, unless there is a court order granting authority to do so. Flores’ attorneys have argued that his actions were allowed under the California Invasion of Privacy Act because he was acting in the course of his duties as a police officer.
Flores lodged a complaint with the LAPD’s inspector general’s office and has said he hoped the officers he taped making inappropriate remarks would face discipline.
The decision to charge Flores drew relentless criticism from a number of groups. Bass said she worried about the potential chilling effect on other police whistleblowers.
Last week, City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez introduced a resolution condemning Hochman for bringing “felony charges against a City employee who reported workplace discrimination through official channels” and urging him to drop the charges.
Hochman told reporters that his office assessed the case with the same rigor as it would any other. In bringing the charges, he said he wanted to thread the needle between punishing the illegal recording and not dissuading whistleblowers from coming forward.
He suggested that he could have technically charged Flores with 122 felony counts, one for each recording that he made. Hochman also reiterated Wednesday that he felt it was important to file the case at a time when new products like Meta Glasses make it even easier to surreptitiously record people.
“If you go ahead and illegally eavesdrop in our community, you will face criminal prosecution for doing it, so don’t take out your cellphones and or your smart glasses or anything else,” he said, while encouraging whistleblowers to work with the D.A.’s office to gather evidence in the future.
Flores had pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in a downtown courtroom last week, with a team of high-powered lawyers in tow. His next court date was set for Sept. 9.
The second-guessing of Hochman’s decision ramped up earlier this month after the D.A., in an unusual move, filed a 27-page motion asking for a lengthy preliminary hearing in the case. The filing alleged Flores deceptively edited the recordings to hide his own insensitive remarks and suggested he was motivated by a desire to win a large legal settlement in court.
Hochman’s motion referred to the officers’ remarks as “locker room talk” — a characterization that was seized on by Flores’ legal team.
Jackson, a former L.A. County prosecutor, accused Hochman of contradicting himself, questioning the D.A.’s efforts to justify the officers’ coarse language.
Several county prosecutors, who spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, called Hochman’s decision to file his own motion in the case bizarre and unprecedented. While they privately lauded him for backing down on Wednesday, some said Hochman’s turn from zealously defending the filing to public capitulation in the span of two weeks was embarrassing for the office.
“From charging to doubling down to reducing to misdemeanors, this just makes it worse,” one prosecutor said. “The filing was inappropriate but then to bend to public pressure isn’t appropriate either.”
The motion, Jackson noted, relied heavily on the observations of the officers against whom Flores had leveled claims — and who were under internal investigation by the LAPD.
Flores filed a lawsuit in June accusing the LAPD of retaliating against him after he reported misconduct.
When reached for comment on Flores’ lawsuit, a spokesperson for the LAPD’s inspector general’s office said it was barred by state law from disclosing information about individual cases, but added that its practice is to refer all “complaints of employee misconduct” to Internal Affairs.
Aug. 17 (UPI) — The U.S. House Ethics Committee announced Monday that it is investigating Rep. Jimmy Gomez over allegations of sexual misconduct, the latest House member to come under an ethics probe.
The release from the bipartisan committee did not detail the allegations, only stating it was investigating the California Democrat for possibly having “engaged in sexual misconduct in violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any other applicable standard of conduct, including engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.”
The committee noted that while it has made its investigation public that does not mean an ethics violation has been committed.
The announcement comes months after the New York Post reported in April that Gomez kissed a congressional aide to another House Democrat at a backyard party hosted by former Rep. Eric Swalwell in the summer of 2023. The report stated the aide was two decades younger than Gomez, who is now 51, but was 48 the summer of the alleged kiss.
The Monday announcement confirms an early June CNN report that the ethics committee was investigating Gomez over allegations of sexual misconduct.
Gomez is married to Mary Hodge and together they have one son. In January 2023, Gomez and his son made headlines as the new father brought his infant son to the House, wearing him on the chamber floor in a baby carrier.
Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-CA, carries his infant son Hodge on the chamber floor of the House at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, January 5, 2023. File Photo by Pat Benic/UPI
Following the June CNN report, Gomez released a statement acknowledging that he made mistakes in his marriage but that he violated no House ethics rules, while stating he would cooperate with its investigation.
Gomez on Monday issued a very similar statement to Courthouse News in response to the committee’s announcement, stating, “Although my actions were consensual in nature and haven’t violated the law or House Ethics rules, that doesn’t diminish the impact that these mistakes have made on those I care about most.”
“I have and continue to sincerely apologize to my family, friends and the people that II have the privilege to serve,” he said.
“I am deeply sorry to my wife for the pain and embarrassment that I have brought into our lives.”
The investigation into Gomez is the latest probe involving House members of both parties that the ethics panel has launched this summer.
Earlier this month, the panel made public an investigation into allegations of domestic violence and illegal drug use by Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio. It also completed its investigation of Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C., finding substantial reason to believe he violated House rules concerning sexual harassment and creating a hostile workplace and recommended that he be censured. Edwards has since announced he is dropping his re-election campaign.
In April, both Swalwell, D-Calif., and Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned amid House Ethics investigations into alleged sexual misconduct. The Swalwell probe included allegations involving an employee, while the Gonzales probe was looking into allegations involving a congressional employee and alleged special favors.
Members of the National Guard patrol near the Washington Monument on Tuesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
The House Ethics Committee announced Monday that it is investigating Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles for alleged sexual misconduct.
The committee said it is investigating allegations that Gomez, 51, engaged in “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer,” according to a statement released by the committee’s chair, Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), and ranking member Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord).
The New York Post reported in April that Gomez, a married five-term congressman, was spotted in 2023 kissing a much younger staffer from another office. CNN reported that the House Ethics Committee later discovered other allegations of sexual misconduct by Gomez.
Gomez acknowledged in a statement Monday that he made “personal mistakes outside my marriage,” but said that his “actions were consensual in nature and haven’t violated the law or House Ethics rules.”
Guest and DeSaulnier said in their statement that the panel’s public acknowledgment of the investigation “does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.”
Gomez said he is “confident that a full and impartial review of the facts will bear that out” and that he is “ready to cooperate with the Ethics Committee inquiry and provide it with whatever information it might need.”
The committee can take a wide range of actions if it substantiates the allegations in an investigation, including recommending that a member be reprimanded, censured or removed, or referring the conduct to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation.
Gomez represents California’s 34th Congressional District, stretching from Koreatown to Eagle Rock. He faces an election challenge in November from Democrat Angela Gonzales-Torres, who has the backing of the progressive Justice Democrats.
Gomez received 46% of the vote in the June primary, while Gonzales-Torres got 30%.
Gonzales-Torres has been particularly critical of Gomez because of his past support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
Gonzales-Torres blasted Gomez in a statement to The Times after news of the investigation.
“At a time when working families are struggling the most, we need to get creeps out of office,” she said. “We need representatives who will actually focus on fighting for policies like Medicare for All — not people like Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Donald Trump, who are mired in scandal and investigation.”
Gomez was friends with former California Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), who resigned from Congress earlier this year and suspended his campaign for California gubernatorial campaign after being accused of sexual assault by multiple women. Gomez had been a co-chair of Swalwell’s campaign.
The 2023 incident reportedly occurred at a party hosted by Swalwell.
Gomez is married to Mary Hodge, a onetime top aide to former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The couple have a son whom Gomez wore in a baby carrier during the lengthy House speaker election in 2023. That same year, Gomez founded the Congressional Dads Caucus, which has advocated for expanded child tax credits and other parent-friendly legislation.
Gomez apologized to Hodge in his statement.
“I am deeply sorry to my wife for the pain and embarrassment that I have brought into our lives,” he said. “Her sacrifices and support are central to my ability to serve, and I can only feel gratitude for her grace and strength.”
Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Jerry Brown ushered in a new era of transparency in California law enforcement on Sunday, signing two new laws that for the first time give the public access to internal police investigations and video footage of shootings by police officers and other serious incidents.
“With Governor Brown’s signature, California is finally joining other states in granting access to the investigatory records on officer conduct that the public truly has a right to know,” said Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), the author of one of the measures, Senate Bill 1421, in a statement.
Skinner’s bill allows the public to view investigations of officer shootings and other major uses of force, along with confirmed cases of sexual assault and lying while on duty.
The availability of these records will allow the public to press California police departments and elected officials in ways not possible before, said Peter Bibring, director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which was a principal supporter of both bills.
“People have seen there are systematic problems and the police aren’t being held accountable — or at least the public isn’t aware of it because it’s secret,” Bibring said. “That’s something the public is not willing to ignore.”
Legal experts also say SB 1421 could have a significant effect on the state’s justice system by allowing broader access to records that could bear on the credibility of a police witness who has a history of discipline for dishonesty or other significant misconduct.
California is the only state in which even prosecutors cannot directly obtain officer personnel files. Under the current system, prosecutors and criminal defendants must navigate a labyrinthine process in court to glean information from those files. The procedure, which requires filing a so-called Pitchess motion, often yields only the name and contact information of a complainant against an officer.
A recent Times investigation into secrecy surrounding law enforcement discipline found that past misconduct by police witnesses, whether alleged or proven, routinely is kept hidden in court as a result of California’s confidentiality laws.
The new law opens up interview transcripts, evidence and full investigatory reports to the public, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.
“This is revolutionary,” said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. “It would unveil what we have been wanting for a long time.”
Lara Bazelon, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, said the measure could expose officer misconduct that was long withheld from defendants and could lead to numerous convictions being dismissed.
“We are going to see a lot of skeletons falling out of the closets dating back years, if not decades. That means people who were convicted unjustly and unfairly will finally get a chance to be heard,” Bazelon said.
Contra Costa County prosecutors tossed 19 convictions in 2016 and 2017 after a police lieutenant revealed to a judge that files showing internal investigations into two officers had not been disclosed in criminal cases featuring the officers.
California’s rules prohibiting the public release of law enforcement records date back four decades. At the time, police unions and other law enforcement officials were complaining that criminal defense attorneys had flooded departments with requests for complaints against officers. Before the 1978 law was passed, the Los Angeles Police Department shredded four tons of prior complaints against officers that hadn’t resulted in a finding of wrongdoing.
In previous years, law enforcement labor groups waged aggressive campaigns to successfully shut down attempts to loosen the state’s police confidentiality laws.
Police unions opposed SB 1421 as well. Brian Marvel, the head of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California — the state’s largest law enforcement labor organization — said he worried the new disclosure rules would put officers at risk. Earlier this year, protesters angry over the killing of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man in Sacramento, gathered at the wedding of a police officer after identifying him as one of the officers who shot Clark, and Marvel said releasing more information about officers could lead to more confrontations that could turn violent.
“There would be a greater potential for officers and their families being harmed by having all of their information being put out publicly,” Marvel said.
Labor officials had used similar arguments in the past to defeat transparency proposals. But Marvel said their position wasn’t as effective this year because public opinion has shifted against officers, pressuring lawmakers to act differently. Legislators and civil rights activists similarly have cited the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and increased scrutiny on police killings of civilians as reasons why SB 1421 passed when prior attempts at changing the transparency laws failed.
Brown signed the original 1978 police confidentiality law during his first term in office. He did not issue a statement after signing the bill, and a spokesman declined to comment on the decision.
Besides the open records law, Brown signed a second measure, Assembly Bill 748, requiring departments statewide to release body-worn camera and other video and audio recordings of officer shootings and serious uses of force within 45 days unless doing so would interfere with an ongoing investigation.
The body-camera law also breaks a long stalemate in the Legislature over setting statewide rules on releasing the police recordings. Multiple proposals in recent years either to make the videos public or limit access had failed before AB 748.
“Public access to body camera footage is necessary to boost confidence and rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, in a statement.
The new transparency laws could spur more efforts to increase public access to policing records in the state. Marvel, the police union leader, said he’d like to release body-camera footage of day-to-day interactions officers have with community members, such as typical traffic stops, so that the public has a better sense of what regular policing is like.
“If the only thing we’re releasing is negative contacts with people, then that becomes the narrative,” Marvel said.
The new open records law takes effect Jan. 1. The body-camera law won’t be implemented until July 1 to give police departments more time to update their policies on disclosure.
Los Angeles police Officer Daniel Flores may have broken the law when he secretly recorded his colleagues making ugly, unacceptable comments that were variously racist, homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise gross and unprofessional at best.
So L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman is right to take this, or any, violation of the law by a badge-wearing member of our police force seriously, no matter what Flores’ intent was.
But Monday, Flores was arraigned on 16 felony counts that could lock him up in state prison for 13 years (he pleaded not guilty).
That court hearing was preceded by an unusual and disturbing summary of the case filed with the court by Hochman. It seemed like an inappropriate attempt to smear Flores as a money-grubber with a convoluted plan to sue taxpayers into a sweet retirement (as opposed to intending to expose misconduct), while simultaneously giving an aw-shucks, it-was-all-in-good-fun defense of the ugly commentary of the recorded officers.
Regardless of what Hochman’s intent is in throwing the book at Flores, the result is one that will haunt this city for years to come: a police force in which the officers are clear that if you rat out the cops for misconduct, you get what you get.
“The message to everyone in the police department is keep your mouth shut,” said David A. Harris, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh and an expert on police misconduct. “You cannot stand up for principle or even for the policy of the police department, except at the risk of your own career and your own well-being, and perhaps your freedom.”
Hochman spoke with me for nearly an hour about his reasons for what many, myself included, see as his prosecutorial overreach in this case. Before I tell you the reasons why I think Hochman has it wrong — dangerously wrong — in the decision to charge Flores’ so harshly, I’ll tell you where we agree.
Cops, we concur, should not call women “bitches.” They also should not call women “rapeable,” even if, as Hochman’s filing assures us, “the use of the phrase ‘rape’ was not in a sexual context.”
I am not sure what the nonsexual context of rape is, but OK.
Cops should not make fun of, in no particular order, people with disabilities; candidates applying for jobs; co-workers; Asian people; Hispanic people; or people who may be overweight — as the officers in this case allegedly did.
“These comments are deplorable. They’re despicable. They’re racist. They’re homophobic. They’re sexist,” Hochman told me. “There’s no place in our society for them, and they should be punished.”
So Hochman and I agree that Flores may have broken the law, and that the comments of his fellow officers are unacceptable.
And now the roads diverge.
Because faced with those competing truths, Hochman could have used prosecutorial discretion — the art of tempering the law with the mores and ethics of the community.
He could have used that discretion to cut Flores a break, charge him at a lower misdemeanor level or not at all, and put the focus where it belongs — on the officers who disgraced their badge with their behavior, and what is seemingly a culture of disrespect and degradation within the unit charged with choosing the next generation of officers.
These are the officers charged with recruiting the officers of the future, so the stakes here are high. This is misconduct that the people of L.A. need to know about, because if these officers are so casual in their hateful comments, can we trust their judgment on hiring?
“On one hand, being a whistleblower doesn’t give a person the right to violate the law,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, who did an investigation on police culture in the LAPD in 2000 in the wake of the Rampart scandal. “On the other hand, I would hope that the district attorney would take context into account. And 16 felony charges seems really excessive.”
LAPD Officer Daniel Flores, left, listens as his attorney Alan Jackson speaks to reporters Monday.
(Libor Jany / Los Angeles Times)
But Hochman argues that a “message has to be sent” because it’s a police officer who broke the law.
“If you don’t hold police officers accountable, it’s very hard to hold anybody accountable,” Hochman said. “I believe that no, we’re not going to let the ends justify the means, even if the ends may be laudable, like exposing bigotry, because it leads us down a very slippery slope.”
Hochman said Flores simply could have taken notes on the inappropriate comments and turned them in to superiors or the independent inspector general, which strikes me as either sweetly naive or disingenuous.
“The officer would be shunned; his career would be over, and he would probably find himself on the receiving end of some kind of retaliation,” Harris, the law professor, said of the likely outcome of that plan.
Chemerinsky said retaliation against whistleblowers has long been a part of the culture of the department. Make a complaint, his report in 2000 found, and an officer might get “freeway therapy,” transferred to someplace far from where they lived to send a message, or even find themselves without backup in a dangerous situation.
This decision to treat Flores so harshly, Chemerinsky said, comes off as “part of that long history of LAPD trying to very much crack down on whistleblowing.”
Hochman told me that he wants to make it “crystal clear” that “nothing in this prosecution should be read that we are in any way trying to chill whistleblowers.”
He added that he did use discretion.
“I hope you note in your article that the district attorney could have brought 122 felony charges, or 122 misdemeanors, or some combination of felonies and misdemeanors up to 122,” Hochman said.
Flores made 122 total recordings of 16 people. Hochman charged on the number of people recorded, not the number of recordings, he pointed out.
So sure, we can count that as discretion, I guess?
This is where Hochman has his messages dangerously backward. Sure, hold Flores reasonably accountable for taking matters into his own hands, if he broke the law in doing so. Certainly, Flores knew there would be consequences to his actions.
But that Hochman is trying to frame this as a fair and reasonable prosecution, while protecting the officers who made the comments by giving us their weak-sauce excuses about having no ill intent, does not provide this city the justice it expects and deserves.
Hochman, you may recall, replaced George Gascón, a prosecutor who was accused of forcing his own values on the city.
Now, Hochman seems to be doing the same with his heavy-handed approach to Flores.
Hammering on Flores does not reflect the values of the majority of the Los Angeles community that wants a police force in which integrity and respect are fundamental, impunity is the outcast, and whistleblowers aren’t attacked, even if it turns out their motives aren’t pure.
Personally, I don’t care what Flores’ intent was in making the recordings. I don’t care if the officers caught on tape didn’t intend to offend, and I don’t care what Hochman intends the message to be with his vast over-charging of Flores.
I care about the result: a city in which misogyny and racism are just locker room talk, but breaking the blue wall of silence is a serious crime.
DETROIT — Two people who attended a prestigious Michigan fine arts school reported conduct of a sexual nature by Jeffrey Epstein, a major donor, according to an investigation that also uncovered dozens of allegations spanning decades against nearly 50 other people.
Interlochen Center for the Arts operates a summer camp and performing arts school that draws students from around the world. It hired a law firm in 2024 to investigate reports of sexual abuse by faculty and staff. Subsequently, it expanded the work to include information about Epstein, the 66-year-old financier who killed himself in jail in 2019.
Interlochen removed Epstein’s name from a lodge after he was convicted of sex offenses in Florida in 2008. The building, renamed the Green Lake Lodge, recently was demolished after the U.S. Justice Department released millions of pages about Epstein that had been compiled over the years.
Sanghavi Law Office says it collected 70 accounts from alumni alleging “physical conduct of a sexual nature” by 47 faculty and staff members affiliated with Interlochen from the 1950s through the 2010s, most before 2000.
“The information gathered during this investigation is, simply, devastating,” the 97-page report says, noting that alumni reported grooming, flirting, sexual touching and sex.
Interlochen said it provided names of people accused of misconduct to Grand Traverse County authorities in northern Michigan to determine what steps, if any, might be taken. None are employed at the school and more than a third are dead.
“We are deeply sorry for the harm experienced by members of our community and extend our apologies to those impacted by abuse at Interlochen,” president Trey Davey and board chair Barrett Rollins said in a letter to the community posted online.
“While the vast majority of the incidents described in the investigation took place decades ago, and reports of abuse at Interlochen have significantly decreased over the past 25 years, the passage of time does not diminish the experiences of our alumni,” they said. “Sexual abuse committed by an adult in a position of power or trust against a student is wrong, then and now.”
Interlochen today “is fundamentally different from the institution described in this report,” Davey and Rollins wrote, with comprehensive safety policies and a changed culture.
Epstein, who played the bassoon, was an Interlochen camper in 1967. He donated more than $400,000 to the school between 1990 and 2003.
Two women told investigators that Epstein engaged in conduct of a sexual nature with them, one of them at the Interlochen lodge that bore his name. He brushed against her body “over her clothes, in a manner in which he indicated was accidental,” according to the report.
Epstein also paid for her to visit him in New York while she was a student. She said “every time he was ‘handsy’ with her, she would freeze until he would stop,” the report states.
The other woman said she gave Epstein a massage at his home, according to the report, and he may have asked her to remove her top. She said she had no further contact with Epstein or his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Outside of the school investigation, at least two Interlochen alumnae made allegations of grooming and abuse against Epstein and Maxwell, according to federal records and media reports. Their identities were not made public.
One testified against Maxwell in 2021 when she was convicted of sex trafficking. It’s unclear whether those women spoke to the law firm hired for the Interlochen investigation.
Jared Leto faces allegations of criminal sexual conduct by several women who allege the sexual incidents with the musician and Oscar-winning actor occurred when he was in his 30s and 40s and they were teenagers.
In a BBC documentary titled “Jared Leto: Hollywood’s Dark Secret,” multiple women spoke about their experiences with the “House of Gucci” star and Thirty Seconds to Mars frontman, detailing allegations of inappropriate text messages, sexual assault and statutory rape from 2002 to 2016. Among the allegations, one woman said she was 17 years old when Leto sexually assaulted her in a motel bathroom. Another woman alleges Leto continued to sexually pursue her in Los Angeles despite knowing she was 17 years old, younger than the age of consent in California.
Leto, in a statement shared with The Times on Wednesday, denied the allegations raised by the BBC documentary: “I have never sexually assaulted anyone in my entire life,” he said. “These claims are absolutely and categorically false.”
Journalist and documentarian Jessica Sartenaer said in the segment published Wednesday that the BBC began its investigation into allegations against Leto after noting an Instagram story from a prominent DJ based in Los Angeles. In a since-expired Instagram story, DJ Allie Teilz, resurfaced a 2012 Facebook post in which she accused Leto of trying to “force himself” onto her backstage at a concert. Teilz captioned her repost: “Jared Leto was a creep then..still a creep now, going on 15+ years of being Hollywood’s most persistent predator,” according to the BBC documentary.
Numerous social media users reportedly responded to Teilz’s posts with their own claims about Leto’s alleged predatory behavior, many noting they were subject to Leto’s misconduct when they were teens. A woman identified as “Etta” told the BBC she was 14 when Leto approached her outside of a modeling agency and invited her to an Oscars party. Etta provided email correspondences to the outlet and said the “Morbius” actor encouraged her to stay in contact via text after the invite. Text messages turned into phone calls and conversations about her modeling career quickly turned sexual, according to the documentary. Leto allegedly asked Etta about her virginity, her kinks and sexual capabilities.
Etta said in the documentary that Leto’s legal team allegedly contacted her and urged her to sign a nondisclosure agreement about her relationship with the actor, though she never did.
The documentary portrays Leto as a celebrity who leveraged his fame to connect with young fans and control them. The woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by Leto at age 17 in a motel bathroom told the BBC she met Leto in 2002 at a mall in Las Vegas. Leto would have been in his early 30s at the time. He invited her to meet him at a nearby motel. She waited in the room while he stepped into the shower, but he eventually called her over and began kissing her, according to the BBC. The woman, identified as “Isabelle,” accused Leto of forcing her hand to his genitals and using her hand to masturbate. Isabelle pulled away and moved to leave the room, but Leto allegedly looked outside the motel room for any potential bystanders before letting her out, she recalled to the BBC.
The BBC also published allegations by “Clara,” the woman who said Leto knowingly had sex with her when she was 17 — he was 34 at the time — at his house in California. Clara said she connected with Leto after his associate requested her phone number. She and her friend were invited to spend time with the band at the Chateau Marmont in Hollywood, where the age of consent of California became a topic of conversation. Leto, who allegedly shrugged off the conversation, invited Clara and her friend back to his home and told the friend to wait in another room while he had sex with Clara. Clara visited Leto’s home a total of three or four times, according to the BBC. She also alleged that Leto often requested that she call him “daddy” and that she pretend to be a little girl.
Leto in 2013 allegedly invited another woman, named Alex, to his band’s concert at London’s O2 and to an after-party. She was 19 at the time but told Leto she was younger out of a need to protect herself, the BBC reported. Leto allegedly replied: “Age is just a number, and anyway, we’re in Europe.” Alex alleges Leto threatened to sexually assault her in a hotel room later that evening.
The BBC also spoke to men who who worked closely with Leto’s band, Thirty Seconds to Mars. One man said Leto was often texting girls to invite them to spend time with the band. Leto also allegedly asserted control by ignoring the girls he invited and speaking to them rudely. The man also recalled that Leto took one fan, who was dropped off by her parents, “off to the bedroom.” Afterward, she called her parents to pick her up.
Leto has long faced quiet scrutiny for his alleged behavior with women and girls. In 2005 the New York Post published a story accusing the actor of “aggressively pursuing many” teen models. Last year Air Mail published accusations against Leto of impropriety by nine women, though he denied those claims at the time.
Still, the actor-musician has moved on from those allegations seemingly unscathed. Leto, who won his Oscar in 2014 for “Dallas Buyers Club,” most recently appeared in “Masters of the Universe” and is set to tour with his band next year.
Resources for survivors of sexual assault
If you or someone you know is the victim of sexual violence, you can find support using RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline. Call (800) 656-HOPE or visit online.rainn.org to speak with a trained support specialist.
FOUR women have accused Hollywood actor Jared Leto of criminal sexual misconduct.
The allegations against the Oscar winner and Thirty Seconds to Mars frontman, 54, come from when the women were teenagers aged 16 to 19.
Four women have accused Hollywood actor Jared Leto of criminal sexual misconductCredit: GettyLeto won an Oscar for Dallas Buyers ClubCredit: Getty – Contributor
One accuser alleges she was sexually assaulted in a motel bathroom when she was 17.
Another claims the Dallas Buyers Club star threatened her with sexual assault when she was 19 after the pair were left alone in a hotel room.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
A third alleges she had sex with Leto when she was 17, which under California laws would be classed as statutory rape.
The fourth woman has accused Leto of grooming her and alleges he once took advantage of his celebrity status by making repeated sexually explicit phone calls to her when she was 16.
The police marksman who shot Chris Kaba may no longer face misconduct proceedings after the government changed the rules on how officers’ use of force is judged.
Sgt Martyn Blake shot 24-year-old Kaba in Streatham, south London, in 2022 after he tried to ram his way past police cars.
Blake was cleared of murder following a trial in 2024 but was subject to a separate disciplinary hearing, which the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) paused while it waited for the changes to be published.
The legal test for misconduct in officers’ use-of-force cases has been raised to the same used in criminal law, meaning conduct that would not amount to a crime should not amount to misconduct either.
After Blake’s acquittal, then home secretary Yvette Cooper said she would raise the legal test used to decide whether to charge officers over use of force.
On Wednesday, the watchdog said it now believes the case should not go ahead. It will consult the Kaba family, who argue there are exceptional circumstances why it should still proceed.
Dozens of other non-fatal use-of-force cases could also be affected if forces take the same approach.
IOPC director of strategy and policy Andrew Johnson said: “We carefully considered the law change and its stated intent to address the perceived unfairness and lack of proportionality of the civil law test.
“We believe this position provides consistency across impacted cases and is fair to officers who are facing potential dismissal for misconduct, which if it occurred now, would not amount to misconduct under the new law.
“We expect the number of relevant cases that are affected by this law change to be relatively small.”
Metropolitan Police deputy commissioner Matt Jukes, referring to Blake by his cypher NX121, said: “We have consistently said since the criminal trial that there is no basis for further action against this officer and that remains our position.
“That is why I welcome the recent changes to the law, introducing a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers during court proceedings until conviction, and restoring the criminal test for the use of force in misconduct cases.”
The family of Chris Kaba said the decision had a damaging impact on bereaved families in cases involving use of force by the police, and that “it gives every appearance that the IOPC has a closed mind on this specific case”.
Temi Mwale and Kayza Rose from the Justice for Chris Kaba Campaign said they were “appalled” by the IOPC’s decision.
They added: “The only just approach would have been to conclude all existing cases under the rules that were in place when those proceedings began.
“Instead, the rules have been changed mid-process to ensure that Martyn Blake will face no professional accountability.”
The campaigners described the decision as a blow to public confidence and said Britain was “moving backwards on police accountability”.
On the night Kaba died, police had followed and boxed in the Audi he was driving because it had been linked to three firearms incidents in the previous five months.
Officers did not know his identity at the time. He was later reported by police to have links to a street gang and to two shootings in the six days before his death.
The bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni over allegations of misconduct and retaliation tied to the making of “It Ends With Us” moved closer to a conclusion Friday after a federal judge ordered Baldoni and his production company to pay Lively’s attorneys fees related to his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against her, while rejecting her bid for additional damages.
In a 47-page order, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman found that Lively was entitled to recover legal fees under a California law intended to protect people who report sexual misconduct from retaliatory defamation claims, ruling that Baldoni’s side had failed to show she acted with malice when making her allegations.
But Liman denied Lively’s request for treble and punitive damages, concluding that the procedural mechanism her lawyers used permitted recovery of attorneys fees and costs but not broader financial penalties.
Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, called Friday’s ruling a victory for their client and emphasized that the judge found “there was no evidence she acted with malice.”
“The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms,” the attorneys said in a statement. “The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages.”
While the judge rejected Lively’s request for additional damages in this particular motion, her legal team said she could still seek them through other legal avenues permitted under the statute.
Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, sharply disputed Lively’s characterization of the ruling, arguing that the court’s prior decisions had substantially undercut many of her original claims.
“There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,” Freedman said in a statement. “The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning.”
The amount Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios ultimately may have to pay has not yet been determined. Lively’s lawyers must still submit billing records and fee calculations for court approval.
The ruling follows last month’s settlement between Lively and Baldoni, which came just before what had been expected to be a closely watched federal trial in Manhattan. Under that settlement, neither side received financial compensation. But the agreement preserved Lively’s ability to seek attorneys fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, a relatively new statute designed to shield sexual harassment and assault accusers from retaliatory defamation claims.
Lively sued Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath and others in December 2024, alleging Baldoni and his associates orchestrated a coordinated effort to damage her reputation after she raised concerns about misconduct during production of the film, which Baldoni directed and co-starred in. Baldoni denied wrongdoing.
Baldoni and Wayfarer later filed a $400 million defamation suit against Lively, her publicist Leslie Sloane and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, that was dismissed last year. Friday’s ruling dealt specifically with whether Lively could recover attorneys’ fees and damages tied to that dismissed suit under California Civil Code Section 47.1.
The latest ruling comes after Liman earlier this year dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit, including sexual harassment and defamation claims, while allowing retaliation-related claims to proceed.
In Friday’s ruling, Liman wrote that Baldoni’s team had produced no evidence demonstrating Lively acted maliciously when making her allegations.
“Allegations are insufficient on their own to demonstrate that statements were in fact made with malice,” the judge wrote. “That determination requires some evidence.”
Friday’s ruling offered each side new grounds to claim vindication in a legal battle that has played out as much in public statements as in court filings. Lively’s team pointed to the judge’s finding that she acted without malice, while Baldoni’s attorneys emphasized that many of her original claims had been dismissed.
Still, the settlement agreement bars either side from appealing Liman’s ruling, potentially drawing one of Hollywood’s ugliest recent legal fights to a close.
Golf legend Phil Mickelson is refuting an accusation that he inappropriately touched a female employee at a prestigious golf club in Southern California a few months ago.
According to Golf Digest, Mickelson allegedly approached the worker at Farms Golf Club in Rancho Santa Fe and made “nonconsensual and inappropriate physical contact.” After she rejected him, she reported to her supervisors and accused him of sexual misconduct.
Mickelson hired Tom Clare, a top defamation attorney, who said video evidence contradicted the allegations.
“There is a great deal of misinformation circulating and, while Phil’s full attention is devoted to a private family health matter, he has retained defamation counsel and is determined to hold accountable any publication or individual trafficking in speculation or false rumors,” Clare said in a statement to Golf Digest.
Clare did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.
The San Diego County Sheriff’s Office said it investigated but found no evidence of an assault. However, the allegation resulted in the immediate removal of Mickelson from the golf grounds and revocation of his longtime membership at the club.
Farms Golf Club said in a statement to the golf magazine that it conducted a thorough investigation before confronting Mickelson and stood by its decision to end his membership. Farms also said no video cameras were in the area where the alleged misconduct occurred.
“Following a staff member report of member misconduct, the club provided immediate and ongoing support to the staff member, conducted a thorough independent investigation of the incident and took decisive action,” the statement read. “This individual is no longer a member of The Farms Golf Club.
“To protect the safety and privacy of our staff and member, we are unable to speak further on the matter.”
Mickelson, who turns 56 next week, withdrew from professional golf this year because of family health reasons, last playing at the LIV Golf South Africa in March. A married father of three, Mickelson won six major tournaments on the PGA Tour — three Masters, two PGA Championships and one British Open — before he left the tour in 2022 for the upstart LIV Golf League, which will lose the financial backing of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund this fall.
His estimated career earnings exceed $1 billion, including $97 million in PGA Tour prize money, a reported $200 million signing bonus to join LIV Golf and an estimated $800 million from endorsements and business ventures.
Mickelson was one of the most popular players on the PGA Tour before his controversial move to LIV and comments about his Saudi backers, and his career survived some unsavory headlines, several of which pertained to gambling.
The Detroit News obtained federal court records that claimed a mob-connected bookie handled bets for Mickelson and was accused of cheating the golfer out of $500,000 in 2007.
Mickelson was accused by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2016 of getting an insider trading tip and buying $931,000 of stock from sports gambler Billy Walters. Mickelson was not charged and agreed to pay back the amount.
Karim Khan rejects suspension as ICC governing body refers him to disciplinary proceedings before member states.
Published On 9 Jun 20269 Jun 2026
The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has been suspended from his duties, the tribunal’s governing body said, following a probe into sexual misconduct allegations.
In a statement on Monday, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties said it will refer Khan to disciplinary proceedings before all 125 ICC member states, which will vote on his fate in a special session.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“This suspension is not an indication of the final outcome,” it said.
The bureau, which is the executive committee of the court’s oversight body, said it referred Khan after making its own decision on the disciplinary proceedings involving the prosecutor.
It said the decision was based on a report of a United Nations investigation, the advice of an ad hoc panel of judicial experts, and written submissions, but did not give details about what it had decided.
“The decision of the Bureau and the related documentation will remain confidential,” the statement said.
Khan’s lawyers said in a statement that he rejected the decision in the strongest terms, and repeated his denial of any wrongdoing.
“The decision is unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence,” the statement said.
Khan, 56, drew international attention when he applied for warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza.
He also sought warrants for Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for the October 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel.
Khan was among the first to be sanctioned by Israel’s ally, the United States, which expressed outrage over the arrest warrants.
He has maintained that the misconduct probe is a politically motivated smear campaign.
According to Reuters and the Associated Press news agencies, the UN probe found a “factual basis” for the allegations of sexual misconduct made by a female aide. However, a three-judge panel selected by the executive committee for a legal assessment of the findings found that the investigation was not conclusive enough.
Khan’s lawyers had previously told Reuters that the judges had unanimously concluded that the “factual findings do not establish misconduct or breach of duty”.
Khan has not led the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor since last May, when he took a voluntary leave of absence pending the outcome of the inquiry.
He is the first ICC prosecutor to be formally suspended from his role by the court’s oversight body.
Only the Assembly of States Parties has the authority to remove Khan from office, a move that would require a majority in a secret ballot of its 125 member states.
Sixty-three countries would need to support a measure to remove him.
No date was immediately set for the session.
Khan’s suspension will have little practical impact on the functioning of the court, given his existing leave of absence.
He has already been removed from pleading in the ICC’s most high-profile current case, against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
