Nicolas

Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has urged a United States judge to dismiss the criminal drug trafficking charges against him, arguing he should be immune from prosecution as the head of a sovereign country.

Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, made the appeal in a Manhattan district court on Wednesday.

His legal team has petitioned District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to dismiss the case, which will test the willingness of US courts to apply international law to criminal cases.

Maduro was abducted and imprisoned on January 3, after US President Donald Trump authorised a military raid in Caracas. The former Venezuelan leader, who has been held in a Brooklyn federal jail, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial on June 1, 2027, if his effort to dismiss the case is unsuccessful.

The principle that sitting heads of state are immune from prosecution abroad is a longstanding tenet of international law, seen as fundamental to diplomacy.

Judge Hellerstein had given Pollack a Wednesday deadline to file his motion to dismiss the case.

Pollack has argued that Hellerstein lacks jurisdiction, both because sovereign heads of state enjoy complete immunity and because the acts that Maduro is accused of would have been part of his official duties.

“This unprecedented prosecution violates the absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction to which heads of state and foreign officials acting in their official capacities have been entitled for hundreds of years,” Pollack wrote.

Pollack added that Maduro was falsely accused and “vehemently denies” the allegations.

A spokesperson for the Manhattan US Attorney’s office, which brought the charges, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Maduro faces uphill battle

Legal experts have told the Reuters news agency that Maduro faces an uphill battle.

Washington has not recognised Maduro as Venezuela’s president for years, due to disputed elections. Courts tend to defer to the US president and his cabinet in disputes over who is recognised as a foreign country’s leader.

US criminal cases involving heads of foreign states are extremely rare, but precedent offers little encouragement for Maduro. In 1990, a federal judge in Miami rejected former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega’s attempt to assert head-of-state immunity, in part because he never officially held the title of president.

The US stopped recognising Maduro in 2019, when he was inaugurated for a second time after a 2018 election that critics say was rigged. Washington also called his 2024 re-election fraudulent.

Maduro says both votes were fair and has long accused the US of seeking his ouster to gain control of the South American country’s oil wealth.

Pollack, however, wrote that Washington’s assessment that Maduro lacked legitimacy was not relevant.

“Unlike in Noriega, the Executive Branch does not dispute that Mr Maduro was Venezuela’s head of state, but instead merely claims that, after 2019, he did not occupy that position legitimately,” Pollack wrote.

Venezuela run by Maduro’s vice president

Since Maduro’s abduction, his former vice president and socialist ally, Delcy Rodriguez, has run Venezuela as its interim leader.

She has also increased cooperation with the Trump administration. Last month, the two countries reached an unprecedented deal that would see the US take over about one-fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Pollack wrote that it was “incongruous” for the US to recognise Rodriguez, who was appointed by Maduro, and not Maduro himself. He pointed to statements by Rodriguez and officials in her government, made in January and February, indicating that they still considered Maduro Venezuela’s legitimate head of state.

Rodriguez’s government has since gone silent on the matter. Some murals of Maduro in Caracas have been painted over in recent months.

Prosecutors have until October 2 to respond to Maduro’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Hellerstein will hold a hearing on the dismissal effort on November 17.

On the surface, Jackson’s numbers at Bayern Munich last season compare favourably with those of Watkins at Villa.

The Senegal forward scored 11 goals and provided three assists in 1,320 minutes across all competitions, averaging 1.0 goal involvements per 90 minutes. Watkins recorded 21 goals and five assists in 3,837 minutes, an average of 0.6 per 90.

Jackson also generated more attacking opportunities. He averaged 3.8 shots per 90 compared with Watkins’ 2.6, and 2.2 shots on target to 1.2.

His expected-goals (xG) figure was also higher, at 0.7 per 90 compared with 0.5, while he averaged 8.5 touches in the opposition box to Watkins’ 5.6.

That fits a pattern which predates his spell in Germany. Among players with at least 5,000 Premier League minutes since January 2020, only Erling Haaland has registered a higher non-penalty xG figure per 90 than Jackson’s 0.55.

Getting into scoring positions has rarely been Jackson’s main problem – it is his ability to finish chances which has attracted scrutiny.

During his two Premier League seasons with Chelsea, he scored 14 goals from 18.7 xG in 2023-24 and 10 from 12.3 xG the following campaign.

Jackson has converted 18 of 61 big chances in England so far, although Watkins has also missed plenty of high-value opportunities (scoring 24 of 73 since joining Villa in 2020).

Interestingly, last season’s numbers suggest the gap between them was negligible. Jackson converted 19.6% of his shots and 40.9% of his big chances, compared with 18.9% and 43.2% respectively for Watkins.

There is, however, an important caveat.

Watkins started 43 matches and played almost three times as many minutes. Jackson started only 15 of his 34 appearances, and Opta says his relatively limited, substitute-heavy sample could make some of his per-90 figures look stronger than they might over a full season.

Aston Villa are close to an agreement to sign striker Nicolas Jackson from Chelsea in a deal worth up to £65m.

There is a broad agreement between the clubs over the terms of a move for the 25-year-old, with Chelsea set to achieve their asking price with an initial sum of £47.5m with £17.5m in add-ons.

And if the Senegal international agrees personal terms and completes the switch to Villa his arrival is likely to trigger England international Ollie Watkins’ move to Saudi Pro League side Al-Hilal.

The deal remains subject to personal terms being agreed, but negotiations are at an advanced stage, with Jackson expected to reunite with Unai Emery having played under the Villa boss at Spanish club Villarreal.

Jackson would become the latest player in Villa’s summer rebuild following the arrivals of record buy Johan Manzambi, midfielder Joao Gomes, goalkeeper Zion Suzuki and defender Matteo Ruggeri.

However, there has also been significant movement out of the club and Watkins leaving would mean they had sold five of the starting XI who won the Europa League in May.

Morgan Rogers, Youri Tielemans, Lucas Digne and Ezri Konsa have already left with goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez expected to depart too.

Chelsea are weighing up a move for the Argentine, who is now deemed surplus to requirements after Suzuki joined from Parma.

In signing Jackson, Villa would be getting a forward who joined Chelsea from Villarreal for £35m in 2023 and scored 30 goals in 81 appearances.

His most recent appearance for the Blues came against Fluminense in the Club World Cup in 2025, while he also won the Europa Conference League with the club.

He spent last season on loan to Bayern Munich, scoring 11 times in 34 games and helping Bayern win the Bundesliga.

Chelsea banked a £14.3m loan fee from the move, though an obligation to buy for £56.2m was not triggered after Jackson failed to make 40 appearances of 45 minutes or more.

Fellow forward Liam Delap is also likely to leave the Blues, with a £50m fee agreed with Nottingham Forest for the striker.

Meanwhile, the club have also been holding talks with Atalanta’s Honest Ahanor, 18, over a potential move to Stamford Bridge. The defender is valued at £34.3m by the Italian club.

A dispute between a producer and Netflix over a missing copy of a World War II spy drama starring Nicolas Cage has now reached the Los Angeles Police Department.

A law firm representing producer Simon Afram filed a report with the Hollywood Community Police Station, accusing Netflix of losing a drive with a copy of his WWII film, “Fortitude,” last month and not providing information on the streamer’s investigation into the issue.

“This report is being made on an emergency basis, as there is reason to believe that Netflix, Inc. and its employees are suppressing and/or spoliating evidence of the theft of an asset with a cost of $45 million to create and a likely sale value of over twice that amount,” according to Afram’s report, which was viewed by The Times. The report, filed July 15, asks for law enforcement to investigate the movie’s theft and “identify all responsible parties, preserve all relevant evidence, and press charges against the responsible parties.”

An LAPD spokesman confirmed it is investigating the report.

Netflix declined to comment on Afram’s report to police.

Afram and his production company sued Netflix last month for at least $105 million in economic damages for the missing drive that contained “Fortitude,” a movie starring Cage and Ben Kingsley. The film, described as “Ocean’s Eleven” meets “Inglourious Basterds,” is based on Operation Fortitude, an effort during World War II in which double agents set a trap for Adolf Hitler and his armies.

On June 15, Daniel Haido, an associate producer of “Fortitude,” dropped off an unencrypted copy of the movie for Netflix to view, according to the lawsuit. On June 25, Netflix informed Haido the drive had been stolen, the lawsuit said.

“Unfortunately, someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week,” Sean Berney, a director for original film at Netflix, wrote in a June 25 email, according to the lawsuit. “We’ve been working through this with our security teams to no luck.”

Berney in his email offered to reimburse Afram’s company for the missing drive or create a new digital cinema package, but Afram said the damage was much greater than that, according to the lawsuit.

“It is not fathomable that a sophisticated buyer would invest tens of millions of dollars to acquire the Film — and tens of millions more to market it — while facing the constant risk that it could appear online to be viewed widely for free at any time,” Afram’s lawsuit said.

Netflix said in a statement last month that it is conducting an investigation and is offering to monitor piracy sites for any unauthorized distribution or sale of the film.

“Netflix disputes any claim that it bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards,” the company said in a statement last month. “While we do not own the rights to ‘Fortitude,’ we take content security seriously and have taken extra measures to support the filmmaker and his team.”

The streamer said it has not shared information on its investigation with Afram’s law firm, accusing the firm of “hostile attempts to extort money from Netflix over this situation — including immediately demanding $165 million for the film rather than work with us in good faith.”

Earlier this month, Afram added a defamation claim to his lawsuit against Netflix.

“Netflix’s statement that Mr. Afram and his attorneys attempted to extort money from Netflix is entirely false, as are the purported facts on which Netflix based this false statement,” according to his amended lawsuit.

Staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.

A producer sued Netflix on Wednesday, alleging the streamer lost an unreleased copy of a new Nicolas Cage movie and seeking damages of at least $105 million.

Producer Simon Afram invested more than $45 million of his own money making “Fortitude,” a film that takes place during World War II and features actors including Cage, Sir Ben Kingsley and Ron Perlman, according to the lawsuit. The movie, described as “Ocean’s Eleven” meets “Inglourious Basterds,” is based on Operation Fortitude, an effort during World War II in which double agents set a trap for Adolf Hitler and his armies. The movie has not yet been released and is seeking buyers.

“Fortitude” had its own mystery last month when the drive that once held the movie went missing.

On June 15, Daniel Haido, an associate producer of “Fortitude,” dropped off an unencrypted copy of the movie for Netflix to view and instructed the staff to delete the files after the screening. Haido also told Netflix to notify him when the drive was ready for pick up, but Netflix was unresponsive to several efforts to pick up the drive, the lawsuit said. On June 25, Netflix notified Haido that the drive had been stolen.

“Unfortunately, someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week,” Sean Berney, a director for original film at Netflix, wrote in a June 25 email, according to the lawsuit. “We’ve been working through this with our security teams to no luck.”

Berney in his email offered to reimburse Afram’s company for the missing drive or create a new digital cinema package, according to the lawsuit.

But Afram in his lawsuit said the damage was much greater than that. He is seeking economic damages of at least $105 million, along with other costs.

“By losing control of the Film, Netflix destroyed that exclusivity and materially, if not completely, impaired the Film’s marketability,” his lawsuit said. “It is not fathomable that a sophisticated buyer would invest tens of millions of dollars to acquire the Film — and tens of millions more to market it — while facing the constant risk that it could appear online to be viewed widely for free at any time.”

Netflix in a statement said it is conducting an investigation and is offering to monitor piracy sites for any unauthorized distribution or sale of the film. The streamer accused Afram’s law firm of “hostile attempts to extort money from Netflix over this situation — including immediately demanding $165 million for the film rather than work with us in good faith.”

“Netflix disputes any claim that it bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards,” the company said in a statement. “While we do not own the rights to ‘Fortitude,’ we take content security seriously and have taken extra measures to support the filmmaker and his team.”

Akerman LLP, one of the firms representing Afram in his lawsuit, declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Johnson & Johnson LLP did not immediately return a request for comment.

Regarding Netflix’s statement, a spokesman for Afram said, “Our lawsuit speaks for itself.”