trial

Atef Najib, former head of political security in the Deraa province, is charged with ‘crimes against the Syrian people’.

Syria has begun its first public trial of officials who served under longtime leader Bashar al-Assad, 15 years after the start of the civil war.

Trial proceedings opened in Damascus on Sunday for Atef Najib, the former head of political security in southern Syria’s Deraa province.

He is accused of overseeing a violent crackdown on protesters there during the 2011 uprising, and faces charges related to “crimes against the Syrian people”, according to Syria’s state-run news agency, SANA.

Najib, who is a cousin of al-Assad, was the sole defendant in court for Sunday’s preparatory session of the trial set to continue next month.

Charged in their absence are Al-Assad and his brother, Maher, former commander of the Syrian military’s 4th Armoured Division. Along with other former high-ranking security officials also charged in absentia, they are accused of killings, torture, extortion and drug trafficking.

Crowds gathered outside the court on Sunday in celebration, as families of victims, including some from Deraa, attended the session.

Speaking to Al Jazeera Mubasher, a spokesman for Syria’s Justice Ministry said holding the trial in public was important to ensure transparency and judicial independence as part of the transitional justice process.

Najib oversaw political security in Deraa when teenagers who scrawled antigovernment graffiti on a school wall in Deraa were arrested and tortured, in a case that became a catalyst for the broader uprising.

Further protests were met by a brutal government crackdown and spiralled into a 14-year civil war that ended with al-Assad’s overthrow in December 2024 in a lightning rebel offensive. Al-Assad then fled to Russia, and most members of his inner circle have also escaped Syria.

The government of interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has faced criticism over delays in launching a promised transitional justice process following the civil war, in which an estimated half a million people were killed. But authorities now appear to be moving more aggressively to prosecute officials linked to al-Assad.

On Friday, Syrian authorities arrested former intelligence officer Amjad Yousef, the main suspect accused of the 2013 Tadamon massacre in Damascus, when at least 41 people were killed.

In 2022, a leaked video appeared to show Youssef shooting civilians who had been detained and blindfolded, with their hands bound.

RUSSELL Brand has confessed he thinks about going to prison “every day” ahead of his rape trial and denies being a “grifter”.

The comedian and actor, 50, who now hosts a podcast is facing trial on three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one of indecent assault against six women from 1999 to 2009.

He denies all the charges against him.

The star, who wore a crucifix around his neck, talked at length with Piers Morgan on his YouTube show Uncensored.

Asked if he thought about the reality of going to jail if he was found guilty, Brand said: “Yes… all the time, every day.”

He added: “I will be with God wherever I am. And of course, I would prefer to be with God with my wife and my kids… I’m not saying that that’s not a difficult image, you know, and a difficult thing to contemplate, of course it is.”

RING IT ON

Harry Styles and Zoe Kravitz ‘are engaged’ after eight-month romance

Snub rumours

Paris Fury reveals the REAL reason Molly-Mae wasn’t at Venezuela’s hen do

Brand, who brought a Bible with him, continued: “We are going to find out the truth, and we’re going to deal with the truth.

“Because actually, I am not afraid of the truth and if the truth is I am going to prison, then I am. My job will be, do not be afraid of that truth, that is what you are going to do.”

The one-time Hollywood star claimed he would face being behind bars “with God” if he was found guilty of the charges against him.

He also strenuously defended his innocence.

Morgan put it to him that there were people who considered him “basically just a massive grifter”.

Brand immediately shot back: “No, that’s what they say about you.”

Morgan added: “You’re very eloquent, you can be very persuasive with the power of your words, but that actually when it comes to any of these issues, you don’t really have a personal principle.”

Brand said: “I do, I do.”

In an earlier interview for The Megyn Kelly Show podcast admitted he had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30.

He said his relationships at the time were “exploitative” – but stressed his sex with the girl was legal.

Brand said: “In Europe and in the United Kingdom where I’m from, the age of consent is 16. And I did sleep with a 16-year-old when I was 30.

“But when I was 30, I was a very different person. I was a lot younger and I was an immature 30-year-old.”

Brand told host Megyn Kelly his relationships in the past were “selfish”.

He continued: “I did not apply enough consideration barely any I suppose really to how that sex was affecting other people.”

At the height of his fame, the actor starred in a number of Hollywood films, including Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek.

His trial at Southwark Crown Court is due to start on October 12.

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

Corrie star Craig Charles took on the Retching Ball challenge with fellow campmate David Haye in a bid to earn food for camp in the latest bushtucker trial

The latest bushtucker trial left I’m A Celeb star Craig Charles throwing up a mouthful of maggots.

The 61-year-old Corrie star took on the Retching Ball challenge with fellow campmate David Haye in a bid to earn food for camp. The duo were strapped into a revolving ball while having to answer questions directed at them by Ant and Dec.

But of course in true I’m A Celeb style they were not alone in the ball cage, as creepy crawlies were dumped on them to add to their distress. Following a dumping of maggots on the duo, David Haye cried out ‘I’ve got maggots in my mouth’ and it wasn’t long before co-star Craig began throwing up.

READ MORE: Mum fumes as family banned from Parkdean resort after “inappropriate behaviour”READ MORE: Police update on teens arrested in connection with 73-year-old’s death as family pay tribute

David and Craig carried on for another round but the momentum seemed to catch up with Craig. As he threw up Ant quipped “Oh I think we’ve had a vomit. Now Craig you’ve just worked out why it’s called the wretching ball,” he added.

Despite his sickness, he kept going but he ended up being sick again in the final round where they were asked to name Adele songs. Craig looked delighted when time was up and he and David were removed from the retching ball to learn they had secured seven out of a possible 11 stars in total.

In a sneak peek at tomorrow evening’s episode Gemma Collins appears to quit again. She told the cameras: “I’m A Celebrity get me out of here. I am done.”

She looked to be in tears again as a stunned Scarlett watched on. It left fans pondering if she had actually walked again, or if it was another low moment for the reality TV star.

On X, formerly known as Twitter, one user said: “Hope Gemma doesn’t go from that clip! I need misery guts David gone before anyone else in camp!”

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

NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.

The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.

Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.

The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.

“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.

Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.

Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.

“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.

Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.

The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”

The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.

Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.

Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.

However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.

“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”

Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.

One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.

National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.

“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”

Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.

Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.

The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”

The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.

Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.

“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”

Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.

Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”

“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.

Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

I’m A Celebrity South Africa viewers are convinced the unnecessary cliffhanger on Tuesday night may have cut off the moment where Sinitta will quit her Bushtucker Trial

Fans of I’m A Celebrity South Africa think they already know how Wednesday’s episode will begin.

After yet another cliffhanger during a trial, the episode on Tuesday ended with Sinitta screaming in terror. Both she and Seann Walsh were tackling the latest trial, with perspex helmets placed over their heads.

They were at the mercy of their campmates who had to correctly guess the answer to a number of questions. Sinitta and Seann each represented a team and the loser would have snakes added to their headwear.

Sinitta screamed for the entire trial, disliking snakes. Each time the team she belonged to got the answer wrong, she let out a wail as she realised another snake would be added.

It reached a point at the end of the episode where Sinitta faced yet another snake being put into the helmet, and her high-pitch squealing was all fans could hear. Suddenly there was a cliffhanger before we could see the end result.

READ MORE: I’m A Celebrity viewers say ‘axe it immediately’ as they fume over ‘cruel’ twistREAD MORE: I’m A Celebrity finalists ‘confirmed’ days in – and it’s not Gemma or Scarlett

But fans think they already know how it ends, and what happens next once the episode on Wednesday picks back up from Tuesday’s cliffhanger. Fans are convinced there was a cliffhanger as right after that moment, Sinitta might quit the trial.

Taking to social media one fan said: “Sinitta is going to crack!” adding: “I reckon one more snake and Sinitta will freak out!” Another said: “I’m surprised Sinita didn’t wave the white flag Sean was very calm in comparison.”

A third fan said: “I definitely don’t think she’s going to survive until the very end of the trial!” A further comment read: “Felt like poor Sinitta’s screams were going to go on forever, not really sure what the point was in that trial.

“I reckon after yet another annoying cliffhanger, the next episode will start with her shouting the famous words I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here and ending the trial.” A final post read: “Yeah there’s no way she’s making it to the end of that challenge. They just need to put one more snake in there and she’s gone.”

It comes after fans complained about the ending to Tuesday’s episode, calling for the pre-recorded format to be axed entirely. Just as Gemma Collins and Craig Charles battled it out during their first trial in the spin-off series, the episode featured a cliffhanger twist that left fans fuming.

Gemma and Craig had just decided how much they were going to eat in the eating trial, battling it out for points for their team. It all came down to the final showdown, but as hosts Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly kicked it off, the show ended.

Featuring a cliffhanger and ending the episode before the trial had finished did not go down well with ITV viewers. As many slammed the decision and bosses, one viewer even called for the format of the spin-off series to be axed entirely.

With it being a pre-recorded series, filmed late last year, viewers have less involvement and it’s all a little different to the main series. Taking to social media to call out ITV for ending the episode too early, one fan said: “What a cruel way to end that.”

Another said: “No no no, it didn’t just end like that. Who do I’m celeb think they are. Love island?” A third post read: “WHAT THE F**K. Axe this pre-recorded format immediately WHAT DO YOU MEAN ending the episode on a cliffhanger in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL?!”

A further post said: “YOU CANT JUST END IT LIKE THAT WHAT THE HELL.” One fan wrote: “NOOOOOOOO WHY END THERE,” as another said: “A cliffhanger. You’re ending it on a cliffhanger.”

I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! South Africa airs every night at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Gemma Collins and Craig Charles entered the I’m A Celeb All Stars show in dramatic fashion with one of the worst trials ever seen on ITV

Camp late entries Craig Charles and Gemma Collins took part in an epic eating trial called Gut Instincts that pushed them both to the limit. At one stage Craig was sick and during another course Gemma claimed she had to quit that course as she was “going to be hospitalised” if she finished the food.

Before the I’m A Celeb games began, 45-year-old Gemma pleaded with the group: “Just give me a chance guys, please. I’ve got a different mindset this time, don’t write me off.”

Hosts Ant and Dec told Craig and Gemma that their first task will be an eating trial, after which they will split to join separate camps. The main Camp selected Craig to join them, assigning Gemma to Savannah Scrub.

During the trial, Craig and Gemma had to privately decide how many servings of dishes to eat. The player who commits to the highest number of servings then had to eat them to win points, but if they failed their rival could try to eat their food to steal the points.

Dishes included Fish Eye Pie, Terror-rine with blended chicken intestine and Brain Freeze – which was made of Springbok brains. This final one caused Gemma a lot of problems.

Shocked by the sight of one of the dishes, Craig said: “Have you ramped this up because it doesn’t look that bad on the telly?” Dec replied: “This is the Legends.”

The pair made their way through the lengthy menu, and after six of the seven courses, Craig has 12 points and Gemma 10.

The trial will finish tonight(Wednesday) in a dramatic climax that left the campmates in disbelief, as both contestants vowed to consume 30 shots each of Bloody Moory Shots – blended bull’s heart and bull’s blood.

Gemma said: “I’m gonna bang the whole tray. I’m doing my best.”

Once they both decided to go for the maximum, Ant and Dec said it would be race to see who finishes them first and wins meals for their camp. But if either is sick they will forfeit the round.

Scarlett Moffat said: “This is amazing, this is unbelievable.”

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

Series 2 of I’m A Celeb All Stars launches tonight and a sneak peek into the first episode shows TV comic Seann Walsh face his fear of heights in a grueling trial with Sinitta

Seann Walsh’s face is a petrified picture as he takes on the first challenge of the 2026 I’m A Celeb All Stars

The TV comic, who was a campmate on the 2023 show, has returned to the jungle for an All Stars stint – and made an unlikely pairing with 80s pop sensation Sinitta in a terrifying new trial. In a clip Sean can be seen screaming as he was forced to race the So Macho hitmaker across a bridge – but in true I’m a Celeb style it was 150ft in the air.

The two have to jump across a series of wooden platforms to cross a ravine. At one point, Seann is seen strapped into a wooden barrel as he takes on the trial. Butbefore his height-defying bridge cross with Sinitta, Seann is seen in a helicopter looking a little on the green side. Speaking about the trial Seann told The Sun: “It was terrifying. But the first time I went in with Matt Hancock, so it wasn’t as scary as that.”

READ MORE: Piers Morgan hits out at Donald Trump with brutal ‘lost your marbles’ commentREAD MORE: Keir Starmer blasts Kanye West Wireless Festival booking as ‘deeply concerning’

The full cast-list

The 2026 edition of I’m A Celeb All Stars was filmed in September 2025 at Kruger National Park in South Africa. The cast features:

• David Haye
• Gemma Collins
• Seann Walsh
• Harry Redknapp:
• Scarlett Moffatt
• Adam Thomas
• Sir Mo Farah
• Ashley Roberts
• Sinitta
• Craig Charles
• Jimmy Bullard
• Beverley Callard

ITV has said that viewers can expect a “fresh group” of returning campmates from previous series of I’m A Celebrity and “spectacular” locations in South Africa. The broadcaster has also teased that it will include “some of the most epic and extreme trials” in the franchise’s history.

The new series will also see a change to the format of I’m A Celebrity … South Africa. It’s been revealed that, after the first series didn’t feature a public vote, viewers will have the power to decide who wins the second series.

ITV has shared that the public will get to vote in a live final broadcast from the UK. It said: “After weeks of shocks, showdown and survival, viewers will be able to have their say and cast the final vote in a live grand final broadcast direct from London.”

The show’s hosts have expressed excitement over its return. Ant said: “The campmates really brought their A-game to the first series so we can’t wait to be back for more trials, challenges and surprises amongst the beautiful South African landscape.”Whilst co-host Dec described the format change as “exciting”. He said: “Having a live final is an exciting addition to the new series with the viewers choosing their IAC Legend and we’ve heard some of the new trials are truly epic, even by I’m A Celeb… standards!”

Series 2 of I’m A Celeb All Stars launches tonight, at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX. It will air every weeknight for three weeks, with the live grand final falling on Friday, April 24.

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

BLAKE Lively has broken her silence after a judge threw out most of her claims against Justin Baldoni.

Ten of the 13 claims Lively, 38, filed against Baldoni, 42, were thrown out on Thursday, April 2, by a judge.

The claims relating to harassment, defamation and conspiracy follow conflict while the pair filmed the 2024 Colleen Hoover adaptation It Ends With Us.

The remaining claims against Baldoni’s company Wayfarer Studios, which include breach of contract and retaliation, will move forward to trial.

“This case has always been and will remain focused on the devasting [sic] retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial,” said Sigrid McCawley, member of Lively’s legal team, told PEOPLE.

“For Blake Lively, the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they’ve targeted.

“She looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.”

District Judge Lewis Liman said Lively sued under California law but the alleged wrongful conduct took place elsewhere.

He also cited other issues in the cases, such as the fact that Lively had not signed an agreement that would have governed sexual harassment on set.

The judge said the actress could pursue her retaliation claims, among others, against Baldoni’s studio.

“Sexual harassment isn’t going forward not because the defendants did nothing wrong but because the court determined Blake Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee, said McCawley.

Justin Baldoni responds to judge throwing out case

“We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel,” said Baldoni’s attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach to The Daily Mail.

“These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.

“What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.”

Lively claimed that Baldoni kissed her during a scene where the script didn’t call for it and said he entered her trailer while she breastfed.

The actress also claimed that Baldoni tried to harm her reputation after she asserted he had created a problematic work environment.

Baldoni claimed Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to tarnish his reputation, engaged in extortion, and hijacked creative control of the romance film.

Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake was dismissed by a judge in November.

The pair will now appear in court on May 18 in New York.

Legal representatives for both have said Baldoni and Lively both plan to testify.

BLAKE Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit against Justin Baldoni has been dismissed, just weeks before going to trial.

The actress alleged that her It Ends with Us co-star and director, Justin, engaged in inappropriate conduct during filming.

On Thursday, a judge threw out her sexual harassment claims, according to TMZ, which broke the story.

However, Blake’s numerous other allegations, including retaliation, will go to trial next month.

The Gossip Girl alum claimed that Justin attempted to harm her reputation after she asserted he had created a problematic work environment.

Meanwhile, Justin alleged that Blake and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to tarnish his reputation, engaged in extortion, and hijacked creative control of the romance film.

Read More on Blake Lively

WEDDING FEARS

Travis ‘stressed’ Taylor wedding may be CANCELED if dragged into Blake trial

He initially filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake, though that was dismissed by a judge in November.

Blake and Justin are set to appear in court on May 18.

The legal dispute has also involved Blake’s BFF, Taylor Swift, and is reported to have caused tension between the two.

In January, The U.S. Sun exclusively revealed that Taylor’s upcoming wedding to NFL star Travis Kelce could be impacted by Blake’s ongoing court battle with Justin.

Shocking personal texts between Taylor and Blake discussing Blake’s challenges with Justin were unsealed in the lawsuit.

According to TMZ, the singer could be called as a hostile witness for the defense in court, which is scheduled to take place shortly before her fairytale wedding to Travis.

The U.S. Sun exclusively revealed that Travis has urged Taylor to distance herself from the situation and to set firm boundaries.

Blake and Justin’s feud began when they started filming It Ends with Us in May 2023, in which they played love interests.

The movie premiered in August 2024, and Blake made her complaint about Justin’s behavior shortly after.

At the time of publishing, neither Blake nor Justin has commented on the dismissal.

Last week, Blake shared an Instagram post about her “emotional roller coaster” after traveling to Wales to watch Wrexham AFC play.

Her husband, Ryan, has co-owned the team with fellow actor Rob McElhenney since 2021.

Blake posted a slideshow of photos of her smiling at various locations during the trip.

COMIC Russell Brand’s rape trial has been delayed by four months and is expected to last eight weeks — up from five — due to “numerous” and expanded charges.

The screen star, 50, faces three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one indecent assault against six women from 1999 to 2009.

Brand — who denies all the charges in full — was facing trial at Southwark crown court on June 12.

But Mr Justice Joel Bennathan KC put it back until October 12.

He noted an eight-week trial in June would run into August — with potential summer holiday and travel interruptions.

Brand, of Hambleden, Bucks, didn’t attend court today.

read more on russell brand

STAR IN DOCK

Russell Brand has bible confiscated as he denies fresh offences including rape

BRAND TRIAL

Russell Brand to face court in US over ‘sexual assault’ allegations

Brand had appeared in court last month and denied charges of rape and sexual assault against two women in 2009.

Before the hearing, Brand took out a copy of the bible and began reading it but it was confiscated by the dock officer until the case was done.

The Met Police launched a probe into the TV presenter in September 2023 after The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches published an investigation into allegations over his treatment of women.

Following the charge, Brand told his 11.3million X followers that he was “never a rapist”.

He added: “I’ve always told you guys that when I was young and single, before I had a wife and family… I was a fool, man.

“I was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord… I have never engaged in non consensual activity, I pray you can see that by looking in my eyes.”

Brand, who was previously married to pop star Katy Perry, shares three children with his wife, Laura Gallacher, 37.

March 30 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal from Joe Exotic, the former Tiger King star who is serving time for trying to have an animal rights activist killed.

The court declined to consider tossing the 2019 conviction of Joe Exotic for a murder-for-hire plot to kill animal rights activist Carole Baskin. Joe Exotic, whose real name is Joseph Maldonado-Passage, is serving 21 years for the plot. He was also convicted of falsifying wildlife records and violating the Endangered Species Act.

Baskin was also part of the Tiger King series. She founded Florida rescue center Big Cat Rescue and was an advocate of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which limited owning big cats and cross-breeds to wildlife sanctuaries, state universities and certified zoos. Former President Joe Biden signed the law in 2022.

Maldonado-Passage’s lawyer, Alexander Roots, told the court that the case arose out of an “intense personal, litigation, operational, and even political, rivalry between two of America’s two largest big cat exhibitors,” The Hill reported.

“By denying any hearing and by refusing to evaluate the evidence as a whole, the lower courts departed from principles that safeguard every criminal prosecution in the nation,” he wrote in the petition to the court.

At the trial in 2019, prosecutors said Maldonado-Passage, 63, hired two men to kill Baskin, one of whom was an FBI agent. They also said he shot and killed five tigers in October 2017 and sold and offered to sell tiger cubs.

Maldonado-Passage has asked President Donald Trump for a pardon. He also asked Biden while he was in office.

In his feud with Baskin, Maldonado-Passage alleged without evidence that she killed her second husband, who disappeared in 1997, and he rebranded his traveling show Big Cat Rescue Entertainment, for which she sued him for trademark infringement. He settled with her for $1 million.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Maldonado-Passage argued that the lower courts “shrugged off” evidence that three witnesses had recanted their trial testimony, including Allen Glover, a zoo employee and the other hired hitman, and Florida businessman James Garretson.

He also alleged federal prosecutors failed to tell the defense that the witnesses were promised immunity for testifying.

But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the new evidence wasn’t likely to change the trial’s result.

In July, Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, 65, another Tiger King alum, was sentenced to federal prison for crimes related to trafficking exotic animals. He was given 12 months and one day, plus a $55,000 fine and three years of supervised release for violating the Lacey Act, which bans the sale of illegally acquired wildlife, fish or plants, including those designated as protected species by the federal government.

A Los Angeles jury has found Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $6 million in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit. The case involved a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to the apps at a young age due to their platform design. Meta says it plans to appeal the decision.

Afroman testified Tuesday in a civil lawsuit brought by seven members of an Ohio sheriff’s office who allege he used their likenesses without permission in music videos and on merchandise and spread lies about them after they raided his home in August 2022.

The fault, the “Because I Got High” rapper maintained, was not his. On Wednesday, the jury was deliberating the case.

The 51-year-old, whose real name is Joseph Edgar Foreman, said on the stand Tuesday that he was in the right, according to local station WCPO Channel 9 in Cincinnati.

“The whole raid was a mistake. All of this is their fault,” Foreman testified, taking the stand wearing sunglasses with American flag lenses and a red, white and blue suit and matching tie made of fabric recalling the American flag. “If they hadn’t wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit, I would not know their names, they wouldn’t be on my home surveillance system, and there would be no songs, nothing.”

Officers were acting in 2022 on a warrant showing probable cause that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on the property. The warrant also alleged that trafficking and kidnapping had happened there. No evidence of a crime was found, and no charges were filed. Foreman wasn’t home during the raid but was able to see at least part of it via a video recorded by his ex-wife and footage captured on his home security system before law enforcement turned off those cameras.

It was that footage that was used in the various videos the rapper subsequently posted, including a music video for the song “Lemon Pound Cake,” which he wrote about the raid.

Officers tore down his door, he said, and damaged his house, taking money, vape pens and a small amount of marijuana. There was a discrepancy about the amount of money taken and returned to the rapper, which seemed to be a point of contention linked to whether he was misrepresenting what the deputies did during the raid.

“After they left, I had the right to kick the can and to do what I had to do to repair the damage they brought to my house. Yes, I did,” Foreman said. “I have freedom of speech. I’m a rapper. I entertain.”

His testimony came on the second day of the trial, after the deputies took the stand the first day and testified that though the raid wasn’t perfect, Foreman had been spreading lies about them for years since it occurred. Deputy Lisa Phillips, whose gender identity had been called into question in Foreman’s videos and social media posts, cried on the stand as some of those videos were played for the court.

Footage with a song called “Licc’em Low Lisa” showed Foreman saying he thought he would “crack some musical jokes” in the wake of the raid, then going to comfort a crying actor who resembled Phillips. “I didn’t know they hurt you that bad. … I was just having fun with a bad situation.” The same video showed the actor engaging in sexual activity with another woman.

In their lawsuit, WCPO said, the deputies said the posts and videos caused them “humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation” and made it difficult to do their law enforcement work.

In an amicus brief, however, the ACLU argued that the deputies’ lawsuit was a “classic entry into the SLAPP suit genre,” referring to a type of lawsuit that seeks to discourage criticism of public officials.

Live Nation, the ticketing giant that reached a tentative settlement with the Department of Justice last week, remains under fire.

A coalition of more than 30 states that had joined the original lawsuit filed in 2024 is refusing to accept the $200-million settlement, causing the trial to resume this week in Manhattan’s Federal Court.

The settlement with the Justice Department requires Beverly Hills-based Live Nation to open Ticketmaster to rival ticket sellers, force the company to open select venues to competing promoters and cap service fees at 15%. California is one of the key states still involved in the trial.

But those steps fall short, critics say.

“It’s clear that Live Nation has manipulated the market and made itself untouchable by competitors, hurting artists, hurting fans, hurting venues, all the while, raking in the cash,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta at the Capitol Forum conference last week. “Not because it’s a better service or product, because it acted illegally and created a monopoly.”

U.S. senators have also chimed in. Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar recently introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act to strengthen the review of antitrust settlements. Klobuchar said in a release that it’s “clear the American people got the raw end of the deal.”

And Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal released a report that provides new details into the inner workings of Ticketmaster and urges attorneys general across the nation to reject the settlement.

Blumenthal said that the Trump administration’s settlement with Live Nation will keep consumers vulnerable to Ticketmaster’s “anticompetitive practices” and ultimately push “concert tickets farther out of reach for fans.”

The senator’s report, entitled “So Casually Cruel: How Ticketmaster’s Monopoly Supercharges Prices and Fees,” examined over 100,000 documents and Ticketmaster’s revenue data. The report argues that the company leveraged its market control to make tickets available on the resale market before they were available to the general public in an effort to hike prices and boost profits.

“The ticketing market is broken,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

In its own statement, Ticketmaster said Blumenthal’s report “misrepresents how the live events industry works” and that the problem lies in the secondary ticketing industry.

“This is why we’ve long called for industry resale reform, including price caps, while also developing tools to empower artists and protect fans,” Ticketmaster said in a statement.

Recently, Ticketmaster has backed ticketing bills like AB-1349 and advocated to Congress for an industry-wide resale cap.

Sens. Blumenthal and Klobuchar are among many industry experts who say the settlement doesn’t adequately address anticompetitive practices and falls short of protecting consumers from high ticket prices.

Under Klobuchar’s new bill, courts could have 90 days to review public comments and government responses.

“When the government prosecutes antitrust violations, the goal should be to uphold the law, lower prices, and protect consumers and small businesses,” Klobuchar said in the statement.

Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the economic policy nonprofit Groundwork Collaborative, said the settlement will end up being “incredibly costly for concertgoers, performers, and independent venues.”

“California and 35 other states are standing up for Americans who are sick and tired of being ripped off and having to scrimp and save to enjoy a night out,” Owens said in a statement.

This ongoing trial is one of several major legal battles the ticketing giant is facing. The company is also being sued by the Federal Trade Commission and is dealing with a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

A group of California trial lawyers is backing a package of bills aimed at policing their industry by ramping up the penalties for attorneys who recruit clients illegally or prioritize the desires of hedge fund investors.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a prominent trade group, said it is supporting two bills this session meant to crack down on the “small number of bad actors engaged in illegal conduct that threatens to undermine public trust” in the state’s legal bar.

The group said the bills, introduced Monday by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra (D-San José) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), were a response to recent Times investigations involving California lawyers. The Times found nine clients within L.A. County’s $4-billion sex-abuse settlement who said they were paid to sue and, in some cases, fabricate claims that became part of the historic payout. Another story examined opaque investor financing arrangements used by some firms.

“We’re not trying to insulate ourselves from accountability,” said Douglas Saeltzer, president of the attorney group, in an interview. “There needs to be consequences.”

The bill introduced by Zbur would disbar any attorney who is convicted of illegally soliciting clients. Kalra’s bill would ban private equity firms and hedge funds from dictating case strategy after giving money to a law firm.

Plaintiff’s attorneys say the legislative push is an attempt to clean up their profession’s image. It comes amid efforts by companies and governments frequently targeted by lawsuits to rein in a barrage of litigation.

Uber is pushing a measure for the November ballot that would limit how much lawyers can collect in fees for car crash cases, encouraging Californians to “stop the billboard lawyer scam.” A coalition of California counties has simultaneously begun circulating language to lawmakers that would limit attorneys’ ability to sue over older sex-abuse cases, pointing to recent allegations of fraud.

Zbur’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2039, would require the State Bar strip the license of any attorney with a felony conviction for a practice known as capping, in which law firms directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits. Currently, attorneys convicted of capping can face suspension or probation, but are eligible to keep their license.

Under the bill, the attorney also would be disbarred for a misdemeanor capping conviction if the lawyer “acted knowingly and for financial gain.”

“It really is making very clear that if you’re engaging in this kind of capping, then there’s going to be a consequence,” Zbur said.

All clients who said they were paid to sue L.A. County over sex abuse were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, one of Southern California’s largest personal injury firms. The firm, also known as DTLA, is under investigation by the district attorney, the State Bar and L.A. County.

DTLA has denied any wrongdoing and said its lawyers “operate with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”

Zbur’s bill also would provide whistleblower protections to people who report on attorney misconduct and tighten the rules around client loans. California is one of the few states where lawyers can lend money directly to clients.

Other states have barred the practice, concerned that direct loans give an attorney too much leverage over their clients.

The second bill introduced Monday, AB 2305, is aimed at the rising trend of private equity firms and hedge funds lending money to law firms and profiting from the payouts. The Times reported in December that investors were financing some of the flood of sex-abuse litigation against L.A. County.

Supporters of litigation finance say it gives attorneys the funding they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and represent victims who can’t afford to sue on their own. Critics say investors can secretly sway case strategy, putting their profit before the best interests of a client.

“These Wall Street investors are salivating,” Kalra said. “This is just gonna clearly say, ‘No, no more. We’re not gonna allow these types of investments to influence the practice of law.’”

Kalra’s bill would bar investors from weighing in on litigation, such as who the firm should take on as a client and when they should settle a case. Any contracts that allow investor influence would be void under the law.

It’s unclear how the restrictions would be enforced. It’s often difficult to tell when an investor is financing a firm’s caseload, much less whether they’re exerting influence on a case.

Lawyers already are barred under the State Bar’s rules from allowing a third party to dictate case strategy and are barred in many cases from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.

“We’re finding that’s not enough,” Kalra said. “We actually need clear statutory safeguards.”