Boom, goes the Clippers.

Steve Ballmer has been tattered. Lawrence Frank has been shredded. Their team future has been flattened.

Boom, goes those damn Clippers.

They had transformed themselves from the ridiculed Clip Joint to a top-shelf NBA organization, with the billionaire owner, the beautiful arena, the best coach and the most devoted fans … but they apparently got greedy, seemingly played dirty, and now have been affixed with a scarlet eight letters that will follow them forever.

Cheaters.

The NBA has ruled that the Clippers are cheaters.

Ballmer, cheater. Frank, cheater. Even president of business operations Gillian Zucker, cheater.

The NBA suspended Ballmer and Zucker for one year and Frank for six months Wednesday for violating salary cap rules when they signed Kawhi Leonard in 2019.

In arguably the harshest punishment in sports since SMU was given college football’s death penalty in 1987 — this is even worse than the USC sucker punch of 2010 — the league added injury to insult by stripping the team of five consecutive draft picks from 2029 to 2033.

The league also fined the team $30 million and Leonard $700,000 but the issue here is not money.

The issue is trust.

How can any of the Clippers partners or sponsors or fans trust this team with their dollars or their time or their affection after they were apparently caught knowingly breaking one of the NBA’s cardinal rules?

You don’t mess with the salary cap. Period. It’s the one thing that keeps these disparate teams and markets competing on a level field. Period.

Yet according to the findings of a lengthy investigation by the NBA, the Clippers’ top three executives — Ballmer, Frank and Zucker — helped arrange rich endorsement deals for Leonard that allowed him to make considerably more money than his contract states. Leonard did little if any endorsing, collected the extra checks, and essentially was paid above and beyond the salary cap.

The circumvention was first revealed a year ago by the podcast “Pablo Torre Finds Out,” which cited a $28-million endorsement deal with the now-bankrupt Aspiration, a sustainability services company. The subsequent NBA investigation discovered three more endorsement deals that amounted to similar salary cap circumvention, a charge which drew the particular ire of the league because the Clippers had been warned about salary cap circumvention with Leonard before.

Kawhi Leonard, above during a game against the Golden State Warriors at Intuit Dome in January, signed with the Clippers in 2019.

(Sean M. Haffey / Getty Images)

Bottom line, the Clippers seemingly flouted the rules, got burned, got punished, and now you have to wonder, how on earth do they move forward from this?

They started the recovery process immediately Wednesday by issuing a statement that accused the NBA of not playing fair.

“We vehemently reject the NBA’s findings, which are the result of a heavily biased investigation seeking to justify a predetermined narrative rather than facts and evidence,” the statement began.

They can let out one of those trademark Ballmer screams and it still won’t matter. There is no arbitration or appeals process available. The NBA’s ruling is final.

All of which leaves the Clippers facing serious questions about their future.

First, will Ballmer still have the local support to own the team? His absence from his traditional seat under the basket will serve as a nightly reminder that he commanded a dirty ship. Their most vocal cheerleader is now their biggest scoundrel, and how do you come back from that?

Although he made great strides in dragging the Clippers back into relevance since buying the team from the shamed Donald Sterling in 2014 — even building that cool arena in Inglewood — Ballmer has lost much credibility with this decision.

He may need to sell to help the organization shed its stink. There’s been so much peddling of billion-dollar franchises around town lately, surely some rich group is in a position to take the Clippers off his hands.

Stan Kroenke? Too late. Bob Iger and Josh Kushner? Too late. Mark Walter? Um, no. How about those Buss kids, or are they too busy making nice with Manny Machado?

Then there’s the matter of Frank, who was struggling to build sustained success before this scandal. It would be a surprise to see him return, just as it would be a surprise to see Zucker return. For the Clippers to come out of this mess, they’re going to need to retool at the top.

Which brings this story to one Clipper leader who was not indicted in the investigation. How much longer will Ty Lue, one of the league’s very best coaches, want to stick around this mess? He has three years left on his contract. That could be three long years.

Finally, what of Kawhi Leonard? The Clippers thankfully traded him back to Toronto this summer, and hopefully that is where he’ll stay if the trade gets taken off hold with the investigation complete.

In all, just when you thought the Clippers reputation in this town had long since moved past all those years of losing and insults and embarrassments and Sterling scandals, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…

It just got worse.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A Coast Guard jet with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin onboard made an emergency landing Wednesday afternoon near Washington, after the jet suffered a mid-flight engine failure.

“The United States Coast Guard pilots made the single-engine landing feel routine,” Mullin said online, confirming the incident.

“No panic, just straight professionalism. After we landed, the pilots told me that was a first for them! We could not have been in better hands.”

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport confirmed the C-37A with 14 people onboard landed safely at 1:35 p.m. EDT. No other flights were disrupted, it added.

According to audio of communication between the plane’s pilots and air traffic control, the aircraft had lost its right engine, and had requested an emergency landing at the airport, which was granted.

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is located in Arlington County, Va.

Ukrainian F-16 pilots are facing such a severe shortage of air-to-air missiles that some daytime sorties have seen them rely solely on the fighters’ internal guns to engage Russian aerial threats, according to a journalist who recently spoke with a senior Ukrainian Air Force commander. Meanwhile, the lack of air-to-air missiles means that the available weapons stocks are now being rationed.

The disclosure provides a remarkable glimpse into the day-to-day reality of Ukraine’s F-16 operations. While the aircraft may be available, the pilots may be ready, and Russian drones and cruise missiles may be approaching, there may simply not be enough missiles on hand to arm the jets.

According to Newsmax journalist Shelby Wilder, the Ukrainian Air Force can find itself monitoring missile shipments as they cross the country’s border, with personnel counting not just the hours but the minutes until those weapons reach the aircraft. The concern is whether the missiles will arrive in time for the next major Russian aerial attack.

EXCLUSIVE: Ukraine F-16 Pilots Rationing Missiles as Russian Attacks Intensify | NEWSMAX2

The Ukrainian commander, who identified himself by the callsign “Phantom” and as commander of the country’s 107th Wing, confirmed the underlying problem when asked directly whether Ukraine was severely short of missiles for its F-16s.

“Yes, that’s true. Any aircraft without weapons is … useless,” Phantom said.

That blunt assessment is particularly striking given what Ukraine is asking its F-16s to do, and the relentless nature of Russian bombardments against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

The fighters have become an important part of Ukraine’s layered air defense network, hunting Russian drones and cruise missiles while also providing a potential counter to Russian combat aircraft, and conducting air-to-ground sorties. Ukraine has operated the F-16 since the summer of 2024.

“We are focusing on defending our skies against Russian unmanned drones to protect our infrastructure inside the country,” Phantom said. “Our target priority is cruise missiles.”

Destroying as many incoming threats as possible before they reach Ukrainian cities and infrastructure requires missiles, with the F-16 primarily armed with the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the shorter-range AIM-9 Sidewinder.

According to the new disclosure, those missiles have become a commodity whose availability can determine how a sortie is flown.

The F-16 carries an M61A1 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon, but using the gun against an aerial target is fundamentally different from engaging it with a missile, and comes with its own risks, as we have explored before. This tactic is especially hazardous when going after small targets and especially slow ones, and it becomes even more dangerous at night.

Ukraine has already demonstrated that its F-16s can use their guns in combat. In May 2025, the Ukrainian Air Force said an F-16 pilot had destroyed three aerial targets and was engaging a fourth with the aircraft cannon before an emergency forced him to eject.

One air-to-air weapon not mentioned by Phoenix is the laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rocket, now apparently also part of the arsenal. These rockets would offer the Ukrainian Air Force an extremely valuable, lower-cost option for engaging drones and subsonic cruise missiles. 

Regardless, Phantom specifically called for additional air-to-air missiles, as well as interceptors for ground-based Patriot batteries.

“We require more means of protection, such as Patriot missiles and air-to-air missiles, AIM-9s or AIM-120s to our fleet,” he said.

Phantom’s message is that simply delivering more aircraft is not enough. Ukraine needs a sustainable weapons pipeline to keep those aircraft combat-effective.

This is increasingly becoming a wider problem across Ukraine’s air defense network. Patriot interceptors have been heavily consumed, with relatively few replacement missiles now trickling in, leaving Ukraine with limited ability to defend against ballistic missiles in particular. The strain is now spilling into the lower tiers, including the air-to-air missiles carried by F-16s. Ukraine’s continued consumption of interceptors is a major driver, but it is competing with the enormous demand generated by ongoing wars in the Middle East and a broader surge in demand for advanced air defense weapons around the world. With production struggling to keep pace, scarce interceptors are effectively being rationed across an increasingly crowded global battlefield.

“At least we need to try to increase the production, or at least to allow Ukraine to localize the production in Ukraine or other European countries,” he said.

That proposal reflects the fundamental vulnerability of a relatively small fleet operating in a high-intensity air war. Every missile fired at a Russian cruise missile or drone is one less available for the next engagement. A finite inventory therefore has to cover both routine air-defense missions and the possibility of much larger Russian attacks. At the same time, both the AIM-9 and especially the AIM-120 are used for Ukrainian ground-based air defenses too. The AMRAAM, in particular, is the effector for the NASAMS, which protects Kyiv, and other key objectives against cruise missiles and drones.

The problem becomes even more acute because Ukraine cannot know precisely when the next major Russian strike will arrive.

That is why, according to Wilder’s account, the arrival of missile shipments is being followed with extraordinary urgency.

At the same time, Phantom welcomed the major technological leap that the F-16 represents over the Soviet-designed MiG-29s and Su-27s that formed the backbone of Ukraine’s fighter force.

“The F-16s in comparison with the legacy aircraft like MiG-29 or Su-27? This is kind of like a new technology,” Phantom said.

But sophisticated aircraft are only as useful as the weapons available to them.

Ukrainian F-16s have reportedly destroyed huge numbers of Russian drones and cruise missiles, and in July a Ukrainian F-16 was publicly identified by the U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman as having shot down a Russian fighter.

⚡️ CONFIRMED!
On July 8, 2026, a Russian Su-35 multi-role fighter was shot down on the eastern sector!

🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!
✊ Together to victory! pic.twitter.com/r8S9fgQaC5

— Ukrainian Air Force (@KpsZSU) July 8, 2026

Phantom also asked Ukraine’s Western partners to think beyond individual weapons transfers and toward production capacity.

He also urged the United States and European countries to do more to prevent Russia from acquiring components used in its own missile production through third countries.

“We need to make as much as we can to stop providing the parts, most technological parts to Russians, bypassing the direct sales, of course, through the third party,” he said.

Phantom argued that Russia continues to obtain sophisticated components through intermediaries and even ostensibly civilian products.

“It would not be a surprise that Russians [are] using the washing machine that they’re buying from the third party to use those smart details for building missiles,” he said.

His recommendation is tighter sanctions and enforcement designed to cut off Russia’s access to those components.

“Important is to sanction to stop Russia from being able to have access to those parts,” he said.

That, combined with missile shortages, could become an even bigger problem when Russia conducts another major aerial campaign against Ukraine, particularly as Moscow traditionally intensifies attacks against the country’s energy infrastructure during the winter months.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A guest on The Repair Shop: Beyond The Barn opened up about the tragic death of their son.

A guest on The Repair Shop has opened up about their heartbreak after the tragic death of their son. The BBC programme returned to screens on Wednesday, September 2, with the first episode of Beyond the Barn.

The series follows experts restoring precious items from guests across the country, while also discovering what happened after the special items were restored.

The items included in tonight’s episode were a replica of Doctor Who’s robot dog K-9, a cowboy hat worn by musician John Cambridge, who played alongside David Bowie, and a leather case used by a cook who catered for Winston Churchill during World War II.

Luthier Julyan Wallis, who repairs instruments and guitars, also set to work on restoring a ukulele, after the owner’s parents brought it in following his tragic death in a motorcycle accident.

Couple Colin and Trish were looking for Julyan’s expertise to return the music to their precious instrument. Showing the broken ukulele, with its strings torn out of place, Trish explained: “This is our son’s ukulele. He was killed in November 2022 in a motorcycle accident.”

“Awful, I’m really sorry to hear that,” host Will Kirk replied. Trish went on: “Cameron had lots of musical instruments, he loved music.” Colin continued: “He grew up in a very musical house, his brother played guitar and Cameron wanted to play guitar too.”

They shared how their son played guitar, bass guitar, double bass, banjo and accordion. “He was a teacher in Thailand,” Trish went on. “When he went off to Thailand he took the ukulele and a chess set, and nothing else.”

Paying tribute, Colin called Cameron “outstanding”, as Trish shared: “He loved people, he was a caring person. He hated to see anybody sad, down, music was part of the way he tried to make people happy.”

Will replied: “This must have meant quite something to him.” Trish and Colin wanted to restore Cameron’s most-prized possession so that she could one day play it herself.

Cameron’s ukulele had been broken after a friend sat on it, with Colin sharing: “We heard a crunch. But Cameron, being the type of person he was, he didn’t want the friend to be upset so he threw it over his shoulder and denied that it was there. It landed in some bushes near the house, I think he knew it was beyond repair so he left it there. And I think it rested there for about six months.”

When Trish and Colin travelled to Thailand to bring Cameron’s body home, they couldn’t find the ukulele at first. “There were lots of tears,” they recalled. Trish explained how they found the ukulele when her sunglasses “flew off”, with Colin saying: “It was almost as if Cameron was saying, don’t forget my ukulele.”

Trish broke down in tears as she reflected on the moment she saw the broken instrument. She said: “For me it was, Cameron’s gone and that’s gone too, because it’s smashed.” She added: “Cameron touched this, he touched the strings, he held it close to him, almost hugging it. I’ll be able to do the same, it will feel like I’ve got a little bit of Cameron back.”

The Repair Shop: Beyond the Barn is available to watch in BBC iPlayer.

Steve Cooley is florid-faced and unequivocal as he responds to a question during a public forum at USC last June. Asked about Proposition 66, the initiative to amend California’s three-strikes law on the November ballot, the Los Angeles County district attorney essentially has two things to say: He hates it, and he will work for its defeat.

Then he lays out his case opposing the ponderously titled “Limitations on Three Strikes Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute”: Only one sex crime against a child will be affected. It eliminates several crimes that can trigger a third-strike sentence. And because it’s retroactive, thousands of prisoners will have to be resentenced within 180 days of its becoming law. “This initiative is a bad, bad idea,” Cooley says.

Intently scribbling notes just a few feet away is 53-year-old Sam Clauder. At 6-foot-3 and 270 big-bellied pounds, Clauder is dressed in a suit and tie instead of his more typical attire of a blue John Kerry-for-President gimme cap, Hawaiian shirt and Bermuda shorts. Rarely looking up as he writes, Clauder gives no clue that he’s at the forum to scout the opposition or that he wrote the initial draft of the proposition that Cooley is trashing.

If you’d known Clauder years ago, you’d find that hard to believe. In November 1994, Clauder was among the 72% of Californians who voted in favor of the three-strikes law, sending a law-and-order message that defined the decade. The vote reaffirmed the same law that had been passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Pete Wilson eight months earlier, but this version had more teeth. Any attempts to amend the three-strikes law, now that it had been approved as an initiative, would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature instead of a simple majority.

In 1994, Clauder had done more than vote for three strikes. He had worked as a “ballot access consultant,” coordinating the gathering of petition signatures for statewide initiatives. But three strikes was different. He believed that the law’s passage was essential for public safety, believed it so strongly that in one 10-day period he oversaw the gathering of 12,000 signatures.

During the next two years, however, Clauder began hearing horror stories of people who were being sentenced for 25 years to life in prison for petty crimes. Not only had he personally favored the law, as a consultant he says he had “made money off the backs of these people.” He decided to set things right. In this he is not alone.

From the beginning, the three-strikes law has been shaped by personal stories, some tragic, others epiphanies. Fresno photographer Mike Reynolds helped start the movement after the murder of his 18-year-old daughter. Three strikes was further fueled by public reaction to one of the most publicized crimes in recent California history–the abduction and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, a brutal, twice-convicted kidnapper.

This year’s attempt to reform the three-strikes law on its 10th anniversary also is rife with pain and loss and, most of all, a change of heart. Two self-described ragtag volunteer activists worked for years in anonymity to reform it. Polly Klaas’ grandfather has become its powerful advocate. A wealthy Sacramento insurance broker with a son in prison stepped in to personally bankroll it.

All four supported the original three-strikes law. All four have changed their minds.

For Sam Clauder and many others, the official ballot argument in favor of the 1994 law sounded right on the money. “Three strikes keeps career criminals who rape women, molest children and commit murder behind bars where they belong,” it read.

What many voters didn’t recognize, however, was that they also were voting to place a man such as Willie Turner in prison for 25 years to life. His third crime? Attempting to buy a macadamia nut disguised as a $5 rock of cocaine from an undercover cop. They didn’t realize that Rene Landa would receive a third strike for stealing a spare tire, or Johnny Quirino for shoplifting some razor blades, or Scott Benscotter for stealing a pair of sneakers, or Robert Di Blasi for shoplifting $2.69 worth of AA batteries, or Eric Simmons for being in possession of three stolen ceiling fans, or Joey Arthur Fernandez for aiding and abetting the theft of baby formula and Tylenol.

Most of these men have long criminal histories. The petty nature of their third strike sometimes masks the serious nature of their previous crimes. But many also have no record of violence. They are simply society’s natural-born losers–kinetic speed freaks and crackheads, washed-out winos and small-time thieves–Fellini’s freaks, Charles Bukowski’s barflies, junkies and addicts who got their first two strikes by committing burglaries to support their habits, often decades earlier.

Newsweek has called California’s law “the toughest” in the nation. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reacted to such sentences by declaring California “the only state in [the union] in which a misdemeanor could receive such a severe sentence.” California’s three-strikes law, in fact, is the only one of 26 three-strikes states that doesn’t require a violent crime conviction to trigger a third strike. The state’s 7,400 third-strikers are more than half the total number of those imprisoned for third strikes in the U.S. Of those Californians, 57% are now serving sentences based on a nonviolent third crime–among them 357 for petty theft and 678 for drug possession. About 35,000 other prisoners have had their sentences doubled for second strikes under another provision of the law.

Getting Proposition 66 on the ballot has been a great victory for Clauder and other reformers–the only one that California’s three-strikes opponents have had in a long, frustrating decade of failed attempts. There’s no guarantee that the initiative will pass: Virtually the entire criminal justice system in California is opposing Proposition 66, and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer have both signed the official ballot argument against it.

Nevertheless, there are signs that this year could be different. In a Field Poll conducted last month, 69% of likely voters supported Proposition 66, including 60% of Republicans and 59% of conservatives, and 78% said that Schwarzenegger and Lockyer’s opposition would not affect their vote.

Opponents such as L. Douglas Pipes, a Contra Costa County senior deputy district attorney who analyzed the initiative, have warned that it could result in as many as 26,000 second- and third-strikers being resentenced soon after its passage. That situation, he says, could release thousands of prisoners and throw California’s court and corrections systems and county jails into chaos.

A legal opinion commissioned by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, however, maintains that only third-strikers would be affected. Using Department of Corrections figures, that comes out to about 4,200 inmates who would be eligible for revised sentences.

In 1994, Sam Clauder was a 43-year-old ex-private eye and aspiring producer/writer/director/actor. Smart and hyper-garrulous, he radiated a boyish naivete and a profound sense of right and wrong.

Born in Houston, Clauder was raised in an Assemblies of God Pentecostal sect, “far to the right of Jerry Falwell,” he says. He once stole a piece of gum from a local store and, racked with guilt, immediately returned, showed the clerk the chewed mass inside his mouth and told him he needed to pay for it. His father, a rigid man, was a Houston police officer before moving his family to Orange County and becoming active in the John Birch Society.

At 16, Clauder got “fed up with the hypocrisy of the church” and began experimenting with Hinduism and other religious faiths. In 1970, while a student at a local community college, he began hanging out with Vietnam veterans. Listening to stories of the horrors they had experienced and also committed in war led to his reexamining and then rejecting the conservative political values he’d always known. By 1971 he had become a political activist, volunteering to work on ballot initiatives to save the California coastline and to legalize marijuana. For the next 30 years, as Clauder tells it, he dabbled in the movies, gathered petition signatures and worked in Texas as a licensed private bail bondsman and bounty hunter.

Late in 1994, as Clauder was advising author and activist Jack Herer on an initiative to decriminalize marijuana, Herer began hammering away at him for contributing to the passage of the three-strikes law. Shortly after, Clauder realized that “Jack was right.” No one incident brought about his epiphany, just a cumulative awareness of people’s victimless crimes that he didn’t think should be against the law in the first place. “I was flabbergasted,” he says, “and so angry that I made a promise that I was going to do everything in my power to make up for that error.”

Three years later, Clauder received a visit from Jim Benson, who had heard that Clauder was an experienced hand in the initiative process. Benson asked him how to get a three-strikes reform proposition on the ballot.

Trim and gray-haired, Benson is a slow-talking, soft-spoken native of Ohio who also had supported and voted for the law. A self-described political moderate, he previously had worked for Reform Party presidential candidates John Anderson and Ross Perot. He also served as chair of the Reform Party in Orange County, and was a candidate for a Santa Ana state Assembly seat and a member of the Orange County Democratic Central Committee.

But in the spring of 1998 Benson spoke with some Green Party activists at a Cinco de Mayo festival in Santa Ana who told him about the eyebrow-raising sentences being handed down. “I thought that they surely had to be nuts,” Benson says. Later he told a friend about the encounter. “They’re right,” his friend replied. “I know someone who just received 25-to-life for some marijuana offense.”

“That was not what I had voted for,” Benson says, “and I knew I had to do something about it. I believe strongly in keeping serious criminals who’ve committed repeat serious crimes in prison forever. But I also know what it’s like to be addicted to alcohol and drugs. And I know that with treatment and determination, it’s possible to recover.”

As the vice chairman of Proposition 66’s sponsoring organization, the Orange County-based Citizens Against Violent Crime, Benson is responsible for running the day-to-day campaign. Like Clauder, he’s an unlikely crusader. At 41, he’s a recovering alcoholic who has been sober for 22 years. He started drinking gin at 14 and was downing two fifths a day when he was forced, he says, “to quit or die.” He had attended a small Ohio college for a year, and afterward worked as a limo and taxi driver, auto mechanic, cash register clerk and dealer of baseball cards and rare coins.

At their first meeting, Benson and Clauder talked an entire morning about what it would take to get an initiative on the ballot–about half a million dollars and at least several million more to run a statewide campaign against what surely would be powerful opposition from conservative politicians, their liberal counterparts worried about being labeled “soft on crime,” and the powerful special interests within what amounts to a statewide criminal justice industry.

In the fall of 1999, Clauder read a three-strikes commentary in the Los Angeles Times written by Polly Klaas’ grandfather, Joe Klaas. Clauder got in touch with Klaas, a now-retired 84-year-old resident of Pebble Beach, and he agreed to become the reform effort’s public face and chief spokesman.

Klaas has traveled thousands of miles through the state in his ’85 Buick Regal, trying to get the three-strikes law amended. Now he says he’s “too old to drive eight hours a day.” Instead he spends at least 20 hours a week at his computer or on the phone, speaking almost daily with leaders of the reform effort.

A former stringer for the Associated Press who also worked as a talk-radio host and station manager, Klaas had campaigned for the passage of three strikes alongside his son and Polly’s father, Marc Klaas. But then he began looking into the initiative’s fine print with a cooler eye.

In late February 1994, Joe Klaas talked to a reporter in Petaluma who told him about some of the more draconian provisions of the law. Then he decided to read the proposal and check it against a California law book. As he did, he realized that not only did it not take a violent crime to trigger a third strike, but that any one of California’s 500-plus felonies could trigger the sentence.

Klaas then spoke with someone in the legislative analyst’s office who explained that the bill also included minor misdemeanors that could be “enhanced” to felonies and fall under the law. Klaas was horrified. “This isn’t what everybody thinks it is,” he thought. “Nobody’s ever mentioning these nonviolent crimes.” Klaas’ realization came too late to make much difference, but soon after, Joe and Marc Klaas opposed the version of the law on the ballot and Joe became its fiercest critic both during the campaign and after it was approved.

It might seem incongruous that a man who had lost his granddaughter to a demented murderer would become an implacable foe of three strikes. But only if you’d never met Joe Klaas, an idealist from a different time. At the outbreak of World War II in Europe, he quit the University of Washington, joined England’s Royal Air Force and fought as a Spitfire pilot. After joining the U.S. forces, he was shot down over North Africa and spent the rest of the war as a POW, seeing, he says, “Allied prisoners gunned down not 50 feet” from him.

But there was more than that. For many years he had volunteered at San Quentin, Soledad and Vacaville prisons to coordinate 12-step recovery programs for inmates. (He was forced to stop because of the warped convict logic that held Polly responsible for the passage of three strikes. If he continued volunteering, prison officials told him, he’d be a marked man.)

Just how strongly Klaas opposed three strikes was visible one morning in 2000 as he spoke to the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. “I want to state up front that the murder, rape and kidnapping of my granddaughter, Polly Klaas, was exploited by this ‘three-strikes’ bill–a bill which didn’t stand a chance in hell of passing before Polly’s killing,” Klaas said.

“As a former prisoner of the Nazis,” he continued, “I can say that taking 25 years of somebody’s life for committing a nonviolent crime is violence almost on the level with murder. [Sentencing someone] to 25-to-life because he made a false application for a real estate loan, or for taking aspirin out of a bottle and putting the bottle back on the shelf in a drugstore–now that is violence.”

Despite Klaas’ passion, his son Marc has become a staunch opponent of Proposition 66, believing, as he recently told the Sacramento Bee, that “certain people are hard-wired for crime” and need to be locked up for decades, even if their third strike is a petty crime, so that they don’t “revictimize.” Their rift is so painful that Joe Klaas refuses to talk about it, other than to say, “We can’t be in the same town together because he’s so mad at me for not switching with him against [Proposition 66].”

Geri Silva, a founding member and former state chair of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes, has called Klaas’ emergence in the reform struggle significant: “Joe Klaas wasn’t just some guy off the street. He came from the other side. He could have been out there talking about how if we’d had this three-strikes law earlier, his granddaughter would still be alive. Instead he was aligning himself with us. And that was major.”

In 2003, Benson and Joe Klaas began a fundraising drive, sending out letters and e-mails signed by Klaas and actor/activist Ed Asner. Jerry Keenan, a wealthy owner of a Sacramento auto insurance firm who previously had made a token contribution, got a letter and decided to essentially bankroll the initiative.

“I went numb,” Benson says. “It was so entirely unexpected. I thought, maybe we can actually do this thing.” Keenan’s check was for $300,000, a down payment on the $1.6 million he has contributed so far. Benson, who had been aiming to get the initiative on the ballot in 2006, turned his sights on 2004.

Keenan and his wife, Cynthia, had voted for the three-strikes law. But “the more we learned about how it was being misused,” Keenan says, “the more we became determined to modify the law.” They learned about it in a very personal way.

One night in 1999, the Keenans’ then-21-year-old son, Richard, smoked some grass, drank beer with his friends and climbed into his gold Lexus with four of them. His driver’s license had been suspended after he’d been caught with a small amount of marijuana in his car, but Richard, as his lawyers tell it, was unaware that the suspension had gone into effect. He cranked up the Lexus to about 20 miles above the 55 mph speed limit on an undulating back road, and the Lexus flipped over. Two of his passengers–both 19 years old–died.

Richard Keenan pleaded guilty to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter, plus one count of causing great bodily injury, and received an eight-year prison sentence in 2000. “Great bodily injury” is a “strikable” offense, and should Keenan commit a second felony, he could receive a second strike and his sentence would be doubled.

“When Richard was linked to three strikes,” Jerry Keenan says, “it opened my eyes. Something was horribly wrong if a three-strikes law could affect someone like Richard.” A precise, soft-spoken man, Keenan has reluctantly put himself in the public limelight.

Perhaps not coincidentally, about the time that Keenan helped fund the initiative, a new provision was written into the proposed proposition. If great bodily injury happened accidentally, it read, without the intent to commit harm, the conviction would not count as a strike.

The addition of the provision has led to accusations that Jerry Keenan is trying to purchase a law, and the family of one of his son’s victims has publicly objected.

Buying legislation, however, is what California initiatives have been about for decades. At the turn of the 20th century, the state’s good-government Progressives sought to take power away from the robber barons and railroad titans and place it in the hands of the people. But that experiment in democracy has morphed into a multimillion-dollar industry where campaign consulting firms can make as much as $7 million spearheading a single initiative.

In 1994, when Mike Reynolds’ three-strikes campaign was desperate for cash, the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. stepped in to contribute $101,000. The National Rifle Assn. contributed at least $90,000 and U.S. senatorial candidate Michael Huffington donated $350,000. That was $541,000 out of the campaign’s $1.6 million in total spending–key portions of it coming at a time when Reynolds’ campaign was barely afloat. At the time, voters were concerned about gun control. Three strikes enabled the NRA to change the public conversation from gun control to its theme of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and Huffington to prove his law-and-order bona fides in a law-and-order year. (He lost.)

California’s three-strikes law also was very good for the prison guards’ union. Increasing numbers of prisoners held for vastly longer periods of time require more guards, new prisons and lucrative overtime pay. The guards’ union “and others came in and bought the three-strikes law by donating money that enabled it to pass,” Keenan says. “I’m not trying to buy a new law, just modify the current one.”

Steve Cooley says he realizes the law has been applied unfairly, and he blames his predecessor and other prosecutors who used it to pump up their “get-tough” credentials. “Disproportional, bizarre, unusual and draconian” are some of the adjectives Cooley uses to describe the three-strikes policy of former L.A. Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti.

“His policy was to prosecute petty crimes as three strikes,” Cooley says at the USC forum. “Mine has been exactly the opposite: You cannot pursue ‘got ya’ prosecutions and maintain a credible criminal justice system.”

Whether the state is maintaining a credible justice system, however, is a larger question than three-strikes reform.

The chairman of an investigative panel appointed by the governor recently described the state’s corrections department management as “deficient and dysfunctional.” The panel’s report cited “too much political interference, too much union control and too little management courage, accountability and transparency.” In April, the Department of Corrections declared a state of emergency for five prisons due to overcrowding–despite a $5.8 billion annual corrections budget and the building of 21 new prisons during the last two decades at a cost of more than $4 billion. A judge is now threatening to place the adult prison system under federal receivership.

Nevertheless, Gov. Schwarzenegger is taking a leading role in opposing the initiative. Joe Klaas finds this “amazing” given that it is “something [that] could save so much money by no longer putting petty criminals behind bars for 25 years to life.”

According to a report by the state legislative analyst’s office, Proposition 66’s passage would, in fact, result in state “prison operations savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars in the first couple of years, growing to as much as several hundred millions in ongoing savings when the full impact of the measure is realized in about a decade.” In addition, the report states, “The lower prison population resulting from this measure would potentially result in capital outlay savings . . . associated with prison construction and renovations.” State and local costs for the courts and county jails would increase, however.

Cooley’s opposition is equally surprising. But he’s a veteran of 32 years as a prosecutor and is a member in good standing of the state’s criminal justice industry, with its $17.5 billion annual budget and the political juice to literally dictate crime and punishment policy.

He doesn’t see the proposition as a remedy for the three-strikes excesses of which he accuses Garcetti, or other excesses across the state. He would instead get the California District Attorneys Assn., which is fiercely battling the initiative, to support a three-strikes reform bill in the state Legislature. But getting a two-thirds vote to soften the controversial hard-line law is unlikely. Why would district attorneys want to give up a sledgehammer used to intimidate defendants into accepting harsh plea bargains? Cooley is his own man, but he’s no maverick.

After the forum, Clauder’s appraisal of Cooley’s position is that he’s been “doing a good job implementing a bad law.” And the three-strikes policy of Cooley’s office has, in fact, not been much different in its bare-bones essentials than the reform initiative he is now vehemently opposing.

Before his election in 2000, Cooley declared, “If the potential third strike is a ‘violent or serious’ felony, the case should be . . . pursued as a third strike. If it is not a ‘violent or serious’ felony, the case . . . should not be pursued as a third strike.” Cooley proved true to his word. Mirroring a statewide trend, third-strike convictions in L.A. County dropped from 526 in the peak year of 1997 to 113 in 2003 under Cooley.

So why his blanket opposition? One reason, Clauder suggests, is that “Cooley’s present policy is Cooley’s policy, he has control over it, it’s his decision to use it or not. He won’t have that power if Proposition 66 passes.” Cooley says he simply thinks the initiative is bad, citing one provision that would eliminate a district attorney’s ability to get multiple strike convictions in the same proceeding.

In any case, given the numerous failed legislative attempts to reform mandatory minimum sentences such as three strikes in California or the Rockefeller drug laws in New York, Clauder probably has it right: “You can’t rely on politicians to correct the law. You have to correct it by initiative. Only then will policy follow.”

“The phone is ringing off the wall,” Clauder says, and he is “breathing fire,” fielding calls from people who, like him, are unhappy that the final version of Proposition 66 doesn’t apply retroactively to second-strikers. He’s still actively supporting the proposition, but he has now formed his own organization, “Yes on 66.” Its major mission will be to influence the debate so that when Proposition 66 is adjudicated–should it pass–a judge might rule that including second-strikers was the voters’ intent.

Jim Benson, meanwhile, is working with Joe Klaas on the campaign. So far, the proposition’s supporters include the California Federation of Labor and the California State Employees Assn. Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News and San Diego Union-Tribune have published editorials in favor of it.

In August, Klaas had what he thought was a heart attack during a meeting in Monterey. Doctors couldn’t find anything wrong, and he is now attributing it to work “overload.” “I’m 84, and everybody I knew who should be 84 is dead,” he says.

Jerry Keenan says he is only “among the people who have financed” a new organization called “Fix Three Strikes, Yes on 66,” designed to pull together several organizations supporting the proposition. “Fix Three Strikes” also is discussing raising several million dollars–in addition to the $1.6 million that Keenan already has donated–to buy television ads when the campaign reaches its apex in the fall. They’ve hired the top-gun political consulting and advertising firm Zimmerman and Markman–which produced a number of anti-Bush television commercials for MoveOn.org–to create the ads.

Jerry and Cynthia Keenan visit their son every weekend at the minimum-security Folsom prison ranch, a vast improvement from the three years of hard time he served. “The other side fought against Richard serving his time at the ranch, but he’s doing much better now,” Keenan says.

As for the 57% of prisoners whose third strike was for a nonviolent crime, they wait for the voters of California to decide whether or not they’ll be spending the rest of their lives in prison.

Researcher Jessica Gelt contributed to this story.

Sabalenka’s pace and power was too much for world number 160 Iatcenko, who managed just three winners compared to the 24 put away by the top seed.

Iatcenko looked a bundle of nerves in the biggest match of her career, but composed herself to get on the scoreboard for 5-1 and immediately broke out into a relieved smile.

It was merely respite as Sabalenka held to love in less than 90 seconds to clinch the opening set.

Despite only being on court for 24 minutes, Iatchenko decided she wanted a bathroom break to change her kit – but more likely for a mental reset than anything else.

Sabalenka kept loose while she waited by practising her serves and maintained her rhythm as she surged a double break ahead for 3-0 in the second set.

It was not all plain-sailing for Sabalenka as she lost serve in a sloppy fourth game, but reasserted her authority with two more breaks as Iatchenko was taught a harsh lesson.

The Russian can console herself with the knowledge she has gained valuable experience against the world number one on the biggest court on the planet – and a bumper paycheck.

Coming into the US Open, she had earned $300,000 (£220,000) in her career but takes another $190,000 (£140,000) home from New York to reinvest into her future.

Earlier on Wednesday, third seed Pegula continued her quest for a maiden Grand Slam singles title with a comfortable victory over fellow American Sofia Kenin.

Pegula also has a shot of replacing Sabalenka as world number one if she wins the title, as does fourth seed Coco Gauff, and kept her dream alive with a 6-3 6-1 win.

There were also straight-set wins for Wimbledon runner-up Karolina Muchova, two-time major semi-finalist Marta Kostyuk and teenage American sensation Iva Jovic as the patten of few shocks in the women’s draw over the opening two rounds continued.

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.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened more attacks on Iran, warning that Washington could hit Iran “anytime we want”, as the death toll from the latest US strikes climbed to 18, with at least 108 others wounded.

Trump’s threat on Wednesday came after the US and Iran exchanged their biggest barrage since July. The US military struck cities and areas along Iran’s southern coast, near the blockaded Strait of Hormuz, including a wedding party in the city of Kuhestak.

Iran retaliated with attacks on US bases across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Iraq and Jordan.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said, “We hit them very hard last night” and that the strikes “took out all of the new equipment that they tried to build along the Strait of Hormuz”.

“It was a very heavy attack last night. And we’re prepared to do another one. And anytime we want,” he said.

Iranian officials said at least 18 people were killed in the US strikes.

The victims included two children, according to Mohammad-Reza Zafarghandi, Iran’s health minister. One of them was a four-year-old who was killed in the strike on the wedding party in Kuhestak in Sirik county.

At least four people were killed in that strike.

Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the Kuhestak attack as a “war crime” and hit back at US claims that it does not target civilians.

“The reality is so horrifying that even American propaganda has never dared make the claim [the US military] is making today. Sirik is not a story. The civilians are real. The victims are real”, Baghaei wrote on X.

Iranian media said the funeral for the four Kuhestak victims will be held on Thursday.

‘Uncomfortable strategic position’

The six-month war has led to a spike in oil prices, roiled the global economy and posed increasing political problems for Trump’s Republican Party ahead of November midterm elections in the US.

Only 31 percent of Americans approve of the war, while some 63 percent disapprove, according to a poll by the Reuters news agency and the Ipsos polling firm in August. Voters are particularly unhappy about high gas prices. Since the fighting resumed this weekend, the price of Brent crude oil, the international standard, has climbed to about $95, up more than 30 percent from the start of the war.

Trump’s approval rating has also fallen from 40 percent to 33 percent since the conflict began, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

On Wednesday, Trump said he did not think the renewed military campaign ⁠would last long. He also reiterated his position that the upcoming elections were not a factor in his Iran strategy.

“Number one, I’m not running. My party is running, and I’m going to help my party,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “But I think my party respects the fact that we’re not allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Iran has denied seeking a nuclear weapon.

Tariq Khan, a retired Pakistani lieutenant-general and former commander of the Pakistan Army’s Frontier Corps, said the US “now finds itself in an increasingly uncomfortable strategic position in the Iran war”.

“The US has not succeeded in restoring the maritime environment that existed before the war, and is now expending military resources to deal with a problem the war itself helped create,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait was a free-flowing international waterway carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil before the war. Tehran shut the waterway in response to the US and Israeli strikes on February 18 that began the war. Despite repeated US claims that the strait remains open, only a handful of vessels now pass through each day, and Iran continues to target ships attempting the crossing.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said two oil tankers had struck mines and were disabled while attempting an unauthorised transit. Separately, Saudi shipping firm Bahri reported that two Filipino sailors were killed in an attack on their vessel earlier in the week.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), which Tehran set up to police the Strait of Hormuz, added 11 more ships to its blacklist for alleged “noncompliance” this week, on top of the 45 blacklisted last week. The PGSA said the vessels will face fines, seizures or confiscation unless they submit required documentation to Iran before attempting to cross the strait.

Strait of Hormuz

At the same time, the US has intensified an economic isolation campaign against Iran, threatening to slap countries that ‌trade with Tehran with massive sanctions, while also maintaining its own blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump on Wednesday continued to insist that Washington was in control of the strait, saying US forces were helping bring “lots of boats out every day with millions of barrels of oil”.

“We are, for the most part, doing it without trouble. Every once in a while they shoot a drone, and we knock it down. We have control, very strong control,” he said.

On Tuesday, he had claimed the US Navy was helping escort some 30 ships out of the strait every day. Before the war, some 130 ships transited the waterway daily.

Khan, the former Pakistani general, said Iran understands it cannot defeat the US conventionally and is seeking to make the war costly for Trump.

“If Trump escalates, Iran can portray America as being drawn deeper into another Middle Eastern war; if he restrains himself, Tehran can claim that American military superiority cannot compel Iran to surrender,” he said.

“Iran does not need a battlefield victory; it needs to remain standing, keep the economic disruption alive, and make the war politically costly for the US. Tehran has to make American victory increasingly unaffordable – militarily, economically and electorally.”

KATE Beckinsale has revealed her PTSD diagnosis and admitted she’s in a ‘lonely place’ in a heartbreaking Instagram video.

The actress said that there’s loads of information around military PTSD but not Civilian PTSD and that people find that harder to understand.

Kate, 53, explained that people who “have seen or experienced levels of horror, terror or violence” see it every time they blink or any time they close their eyes for a second.

She said: “Those people aren’t recognised as heroes.”

She went on to explain that although people with PTSD go about their everyday lives that “they don’t sleep for more than an hour because when they do, it’s full of nightmares.”

She said: “Anything, smells, sounds, thoughts, feelings. Can trigger them into a place that is actually like hell.”

FAKE FRIENDS?

Premiere ‘misery’… why Sandra and Nicole’s pals act is a load of Bullocks

CLEMMIE MOODIE

Twist in Katie Price divorce as Lee Andrews gets ready to play his ace card

She shared that since battling PTSD is “invisible,” people should be “kinder and gentler” to others.

She continued: “It really is true that if you haven’t walked a mile in someone’s shoes — however fancy you think the shoes are — you have absolutely no idea what they might be carrying, masking, dealing with day and night.

“And if in doubt, especially to a little child. And I am someone who had a little child who was treated extremely cruelly by grown adults, who forgave themselves immediately.

“So if in doubt be kind. Always be kind.”

The star ended her video by explaining that PTSD victims “are the loneliest people because they are alone with a level of horror that’s incompatible with life.

“Yet a lot of the time these people continue to try and put one foot in front of the other.”

Fans flocked to comment and one wrote: “Thank you for sharing this, I appreciate you being so open n giving some insight, I don’t know if it helps but I hope you know it’s appreciated.”

Kate replied: “I’m really glad that makes me happy. I just hope at least one person can feel seen and appreciated and understood. It can be such a lonely place.”

Another added: “Sending love and hugs.”

A third wrote: “The truest words I’ve heard all f***ing year! Hope you’re ok xx.”

While a fourth said: “You’re right… there’s not enough awareness of complex PTSD at all!”

Kate lost her beloved mum Judy Loe, 73, in 2025 after a battle with cancer.

Kate first revealed her mother’s cancer diagnosis last year, shortly after the death of her famous stepfather Roy Battersby, who tragically passed away following a massive stroke.

The Serendipity star also lost her father Richard Beckinsale at the age of five after he suffered a huge heart attack.

ANCHORAGE — He wielded extraordinary power in Washington for more than three decades, eventually holding sway over nearly $800 billion a year in federal spending.

But outside the halls of the U.S. Senate, which is a world of personal wealth so rarified some call it “the Millionaires’ Club,” Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) had struggled financially.

Then, in 1997, he got serious about making money. And in almost no time, he too was a millionaire — thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help.

Added together, Stevens’ new partnerships and investments provide a step-by-step guide to building a personal fortune — if you happen to be one of the country’s most influential senators.

They also illustrate how lax ethics rules allow members of Congress and their families to profit from personal business dealings with special interests.

Among the ways that Stevens became wealthy:

* Armed with the power his committee posts give him over the Pentagon, Stevens helped save a $450-million military housing contract for an Anchorage businessman. The same businessman made Stevens a partner in a series of real estate investments that turned the senator’s $50,000 stake into at least $750,000 in six years.

* An Alaska Native company that Stevens helped create got millions of dollars in defense contracts through preferences he wrote into law. Now the company pays $6 million a year to lease an office building owned by the senator and his business partners. Stevens continues to push legislation that benefits the company.

* An Alaskan communications company benefited from the senator’s activities on the Commerce Committee. His wife, Catherine, earned tens of thousands of dollars from an inside deal involving the company’s stock.

Stevens, in a written response to questions submitted by The Times, said that in all these cases his official actions were motivated by a desire to help Alaska, and that he played no role in the day-to-day management of the ventures into which he put money.

“I am a passive investor,” Stevens said of his real estate dealings. “I am not now nor have I been involved in buying or selling properties, negotiating leases or making other management decisions.”

All in the Family

In these deals and others, Stevens’ brother-in-law, William H. Bittner, played a pivotal role. An Anchorage lawyer and lobbyist, Bittner represents major business interests for whom the senator has repeatedly gone to bat. In one instance, Stevens engineered a $9.6-million federal appropriation that chiefly benefited a Bittner client, part of South Korea’s Hyundai conglomerate.

Stevens tucked a single line into a must-pass appropriations bill that used federal tax dollars to buy the company out of a coal-loading facility in Seward.

Stevens said he did it to lower the company’s costs and keep it from canceling an agreement to buy Alaskan coal. Bittner did not respond to questions from The Times.

Stevens’ relationship with Bittner fits an increasingly widespread pattern in Washington: Senior senators do favors for special interests that pay hundreds of thousand of dollars in lobbying and consulting fees to the senators’ children, spouses and other relatives.

As The Times documented in a series of articles in the summer, Sens. John B. Breaux (D-La.), Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) did favors for companies and groups that paid their sons as lobbyists and consultants. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pushed through federal land trades and other provisions benefiting Nevada interests that employ his sons and son-in-law.

The Times also reported that Stevens had continually supported interests that paid his youngest son, Ben, hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant.

The senators all said their decisions on policy issues and legislation had not been influenced by their relatives.

But Stevens’ dealings have carried him a step further. His official actions have helped individuals and companies from which he himself draws financial benefits, a six-month Times examination found.

His required financial statements have fallen short of complete disclosure — especially on the activities of a small investment corporation owned by his wife and her family, a company that is covered by the reporting rules.

The Senate has few ethics rules governing such arrangements. Although accepting expensive gifts and speaking fees is banned, the conflict-of-interest rules are much less explicit. For example, nothing clearly bars a senator from sponsoring legislation that benefits the clients of family members who lobby. Nor are lawmakers prohibited from going into business with people receiving legislative favors.

Mainly, the Senate relies on an ill-defined injunction not to bring shame upon the body.

Senate Ethics Committee Chairman George Voinovich (R-Ohio) declined to discuss the issues raised by The Times articles.

House Ethics Committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said he hoped to convene an advisory panel of current and former House Ethics Committee members next year to examine a range of ethics questions, including how to address the issue of lobbying by relatives.

“I do think we ought to revisit this,” he said. He declined to comment on the issue of lawmakers’ financial partners.

Lawmakers should be careful about their business relationships, John D. Saxon, a former Senate Ethics Committee counsel, said, speaking generally and not about Stevens in particular.

“It’s a very slippery slope for a member of Congress to be entangled with someone in a business dealing and then use their official position to help them, even if it’s on something completely different,” he said.

‘Stevens Money’

Today, Stevens is the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, and as president pro tempore stands just behind the vice president and the speaker of the House in the constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office.

For more than 20 years, he has been chairman or ranking member of the Senate’s Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Since 1997, he has been chairman or ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, which must approve every dollar of federal discretionary spending each year.

Stevens’ position as a senior member of the Commerce Committee adds to his clout — especially in telecommunications policy, which is under the committee’s jurisdiction.

In Alaska, Stevens exerts unparalleled influence. No state is so dependent on federal dollars and decisions. The federal government still owns 60% of all its land, generates one-third of all jobs, and holds the keys to economic growth through regulation of its major industries — oil and gas, fishing, timber and tourism.

Federal spending in Alaska, known locally as “Stevens money,” runs as much as 70% above the national average on a per capita basis.

Since his first day in the Senate in 1968, Stevens has delivered for Alaska.

He has won tax breaks for Native businesses, bailouts for fishermen, a pipeline for an oil consortium and restoration of an abandoned Army post as a tourist attraction for a Yukon village.

He got $28 million for a rail terminal open only during the summer and $40 million for a commercial space satellite facility.

Almost every institution, region and segment of the population in the state has benefited from Stevens’ efforts, from its schools and social programs to its transportation system, its urban areas and the far-flung villages of Alaska’s Native peoples.

But during the period Stevens has grown wealthy, some longtime supporters say, the senator has become less willing to hear their views.

“I’ve been here a long time, and always had a great deal of respect for Sen. Stevens’ enormous power and the good he’s done for Alaska,” Terry Haines, a veteran commercial fisherman from Kodiak Island, said recently. “But lately he’s become extremely rigid and doesn’t seem to be listening to his constituents much.”

Hard Times

Theodore Fulton Stevens was born Nov. 18, 1923, in Indianapolis. At the outset of the Great Depression, when Stevens was 6 years old, his parents divorced, according to his campaign biography.

Stevens went to live with his grandparents after the divorce, helping out by selling newspapers and working evenings and weekends in a drugstore. He later moved in with an aunt and uncle in Manhattan Beach, Calif., where he graduated from high school. Both his father and grandfather died of cancer, Stevens has said.

Stevens joined the Army Air Corps during World War II, flying cargo planes “over the Hump” in the Himalayas — some of the most dangerous missions of the war. He won two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, his biography says.

The biography describes how he graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law School. After working in the 1952 Eisenhower campaign, he was hired by a Washington lawyer, but soon took a new job as a lawyer in Alaska, which was still a territory.

He played a leading role in the successful campaign for statehood, but Alaska’s voters rejected Stevens the first two times he ran for the Senate.

Winning a seat in the state Legislature, he became House majority leader and go-to man for Gov. Walter J. Hickel. In 1968, when Sen. E.L. “Bob” Bartlett died unexpectedly, Hickel picked his ally to fill the vacancy.

In the Senate at last, Stevens worked hard to master legislative details and committee politics.

But increasing political success was accompanied by personal tragedy.

In 1978, his first wife, Ann, died along with four others when the executive jet carrying them home crashed at the Anchorage airport. Stevens was one of two survivors.

At that point, the Stevens’ five children were adults. Two years later, he remarried, and soon had a daughter, Lily, who recently graduated from college.

In the 1980s, Stevens and his new wife, the former Catherine Bittner, suffered a serious financial reversal.

Along with her younger brother, William Bittner, and other partners, Stevens invested in the construction of a $2-million crab boat, records show. Before it was finished, costs soared and the crab market crashed, plunging Stevens into debt.

The unexpected inheritance of a 54-foot yacht helped Stevens to regain his financial footing. Records show the boat was a bequest from the late Charles Willis “Bill” Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a longtime friend of Stevens’. Stevens sold the boat for about $400,000, according to a source involved in the transaction who did not want to be named.

Stevens’ financial problems underscored the disparity between his personal situation and that of his wealthy Senate colleagues.

In a news interview in the late 1980s, he lashed out at Alaska voters for failing to appreciate the personal and financial sacrifices he had made for them.

A $50,000 Investment

In 1997, Stevens began making up for lost time.

“Money was never what Ted Stevens was about,” one close associate said of Stevens’ sudden focus on accumulating wealth. The associate attributed it to Stevens’ age — he turned 80 last month — and to concern about his family.

Whatever the reasons for the change, sometime in 1997 — acting at the senator’s request — brother-in-law Bittner contacted a friend, Anchorage real estate developer Jonathan B. Rubini, about investment opportunities for the senator, Rubini said.

At the time, Stevens was making about $130,000 a year as a senator, and his wife reported annual earnings of about $100,000.

Rubini said he would be honored to help, the developer recalled recently during extensive interviews in his Anchorage office.

A lawyer and a Democrat known for representing liberal clients, Rubini had a gift for engineering complex deals.

Rubini and his partner, Leonard B. Hyde, made it a practice to form a separate syndicate of investors for each project. Bittner had often been among those participants. Rubini arranged for Stevens to put up $50,000, giving him a 7.7% interest in a new syndicate called JLS Properties.

Rubini, Hyde and another partner who came in on the deal were required to personally guarantee, if necessary, debts the partnership took on. They also agreed to contribute more capital if needed.

Stevens was not asked to guarantee notes or promise more money because he was brought in as a passive investor, Rubini said. The senator said he asked for that status because it shielded him from the kind of open-ended financial obligation that had caused his “bad experience” in the crab boat venture.

The deal began in characteristic Rubini fashion, with the purchase of an $11-million collection of what he called “ragtag” properties, whose out-of-state owners wanted to unload. Rubini quickly resold several of the properties to pay down debt.

Among the properties retained were a small office park near the Anchorage airport and a modest two-story office building downtown. Within three years, Rubini said, Stevens’ equity climbed to about $250,000.

Stevens also invested $50,000 in a separate Rubini syndicate to acquire an apartment complex in Fairbanks in 1999, records show. Stevens’ equity in that property has grown too, Rubini said.

A Federal Contract

Stevens was soon in a position to do a favor for Rubini.

When Elmendorf Air Force Base, immediately north of Anchorage, was selected to participate in a new Pentagon program to privatize base housing, Rubini and another set of partners bid on the $450-million contract in 2000.

The chosen developer would take title to the existing housing, upgrade and expand it, then rent the houses back to service families. At 828 units, the Elmendorf contract was far larger than anything Rubini had built before — “a big reach for us,” as he put it.

Yet with low-interest government construction loans and the Air Force pledging to pay tenants’ housing allowances directly to the contractor for the next 50 years, it looked like a moneymaker.

Bittner became an investor in the Elmendorf group that Rubini put together, records show. Stevens did not, and he said Monday that he had been unaware of Bittner’s involvement.

The senator said he “strongly supported” privatization because it improved housing for military families and “it would greatly enhance the likelihood that Elmendorf would not be closed in the next round of base closures.”

When Rubini sought more time to prepare his bid, Air Force officials noted in their records, he sent the senator a copy of the request.

“I purposely CC’d Sen. Stevens to send a signal to the Air Force that we would raise the issue with the Alaska delegation if the Air Force acted unreasonably,” Rubini said.

Although it was less than he wanted, Rubini was given a two-week extension.

With only the final paperwork to wrap up, Rubini was told he’d won.

Then, in September 2000, days before the deal was to become final, the Air Force reneged. One government memo said the Air Force thought Rubini’s group “lacked capacity and adequate financing” — claims Rubini strenuously rejects.

Rubini, whose group had already spent $1 million on preparation work, fought back. He filed a formal protest and also wrote to Stevens, explaining the problem and requesting help. Then he flew to Washington. First, he tried to talk to Air Force officials, who refused to see him. Next, he visited Stevens on Capitol Hill.

The meeting went so well that Stevens invited Rubini home, where they watched one of the presidential candidate debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush, Rubini said.

Military Offensive

Stevens said he decided to get involved with the Elmendorf project.

“My involvement with the Elmendorf project was motivated to ensure that the Air Force moved forward,” he said in his written response.

In addition, he said, he was “looking out for an Alaskan company that was getting short shrift from the Department of Defense.”

Stevens did not answer questions about the specific actions he took. He was quoted in an August Anchorage Daily News article as saying he called Air Force generals. The article reported on his relationship with Rubini.

Whatever he did, the Air Force began to feel some heat.

As chairman of Appropriations, Stevens is an ex officio member of its Military Construction Subcommittee. The chairman of that subcommittee, Conrad R. Burns (R-Mont.), is one of Stevens’ fishing buddies.

In October 2000, Burns wrote to the secretary of the Air Force, F. Whitten Peters, threatening to take away the Elmendorf privatization money because of the glitch in awarding the contract.

Burns arranged for a similar letter to go to the Air Force from the chairman of the corresponding House committee, and House aides said they knew Stevens was interested in the matter.

Burns did not respond to calls or written questions about his actions.

Meanwhile, Rubini tried one more move: joining forces with the only other Elmendorf bidder — Hunt Building Corp. of El Paso. Hunt was an established builder of military housing, though the government had forced the company to pay $8 million in compensation for construction problems on an earlier project.

In early December 2000, the Air Force put aside its reservations and decided Rubini and his new partner were acceptable.

Rubini said he did not know specifically what Stevens did on the Elmendorf project. Whatever it was, “Sen. Stevens would have stepped up to assist any Alaska business,” he said.

Air Force officials say they are happy with the work Rubini’s firm has done at Elmendorf, and recently announced the Rubini group would get to do a second round of housing upgrades without further competition — this phase 50% larger than the first.

Inside Track

Stevens’ efforts to help Rubini with Elmendorf came just as Rubini was making a decision that transformed Stevens from a modestly successful investor into a millionaire.

In October 2000, while Rubini was enlisting the senator’s help with the Air Force, the developer acquired 30 acres in midtown Anchorage that he planned to cover with gleaming office towers.

Like Elmendorf, this deal was a big step up for Rubini — larger both in size and potential profits than his earlier ventures.

And Rubini chose to make Stevens and JLS Properties part of it. He said JLS had accrued equity in the properties it already owned and thus could help with the new financing.

Rubini could have financed the new development in many ways. He could have used the financial resources of almost any of his numerous successful holdings. Or, as he frequently did in such cases, he could have attracted an entirely new set of investors.

Why did he choose to use JLS to help with financing instead of one of the other options? It was just a decision he made, Rubini said.

Once again, the senator did not have to agree to guarantee the new venture’s debts, as the other JLS partners were required to do.

The first new building to be constructed, called Centerpoint I, is a striking $35-million edifice with commanding views of snow-capped mountains. The remainder of the 30-acre parcel is being developed as Centerpoint II. Stevens is part of that project too.

Stevens has reported that his investments in JLS, Centerpoint I and Centerpoint II, all stemming from his initial $50,000 investment, are now worth between $750,000 and $1.5 million.

Rubini said there was no connection between Stevens’ intervention on Elmendorf and Rubini’s decision to move the senator into the Centerpoint deals.

“Clearly, a phone call from Sen. Stevens does not hurt,” Rubini said, referring to the senator’s contacts with the Air Force on his behalf.

“But there was no quid pro quo, plain and simple,” he said.

Lifetime Annuity

Today, Centerpoint I is fully occupied as the new headquarters of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which is paying $6 million a year on a 20-year lease.

Arctic Slope is no ordinary tenant. A $1-billion-a-year business, it is the largest Alaskan-owned company in the state. More important, the company — along with 12 other regional Native corporations — was created through legislation the senator took the lead in drafting. And it has prospered through his continuing efforts in the Senate.

Arctic Slope and the other Native regional corporations were born in 1971 as part of a landmark bill called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, hailed as a humanitarian alternative to the failures of traditional reservations.

Under the act, about 40 million acres and almost $1 billion in working capital went to Native corporations and to some 200 much smaller village bodies to settle their claims to land. They were to help their shareholders, the Native people living in their regions, by making investments, starting businesses and in other ways generating economic activity.

Many of the Native corporations have found it hard to fulfill their mission, but Arctic Slope, which represents Inupiat Eskimos on the oil-rich North Slope, gradually built a strong base providing support services to the giant oil companies at Prudhoe Bay.

And Stevens is now fighting to authorize oil extraction from the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where Arctic Slope owns petroleum rights to 92,000 acres.

Thanks to Stevens, Arctic Slope and the other Native corporations also enjoy preferences when seeking federal contracts that go well beyond anything available to blacks or Latinos, even though Arctic Slope ranks among the nation’s 500 largest privately owned companies.

One set of preferences that Stevens inserted into his annual defense appropriations bills recently enabled Arctic Slope and another Native corporation to land a $2-billion Pentagon deal without competitive bidding.

Now money is flowing the other way — to Stevens.

A company executive, Conrad Bagne, said Arctic Slope did not find out about Stevens’ ownership in Centerpoint until the company had finalized the deal. He said Stevens’ involvement had no effect on the company’s decision to sign the lease and that there was no impropriety.

“No one is more committed to public service than Sen. Stevens,” Bagne said.

Stevens now has a personal stake in his tenant’s future. At the same time, he continues to aid the company’s bottom line through his position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This year, for example, he pushed through legislation renewing the federal defense contract preferences.

In addition, Stevens has inserted a provision in this year’s pending appropriations bill that directs federal agencies to consult with Arctic Slope and the other Native corporations on equal footing with tribal governments. This gives Arctic Slope, for one, new legal standing when pushing to open the Arctic wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling — a position opposed by at least some tribal leaders.

“I have and will continue to work with all Alaska Native corporations — both individually and collectively — in my official capacity,” said Stevens, noting that he does not deal directly with Arctic Slope on its lease.

An Arctic Slope subsidiary has paid Bittner $120,000 since 2002 to lobby on appropriations and government contracts.

Hidden Interest

Business interests that look to her husband for support have also enriched Catherine Stevens in a series of transactions that went through Chamer Co., the private family investment firm run by Bittner.

Sen. Stevens did not report some of these deals on his financial disclosure reports; others were reported only sketchily — without the details required by law.

One of the transactions was a quick stock deal involving the Alaska Communications Systems Group that earned Catherine Stevens at least $47,000, records show.

The company has benefited from the senator’s influence over communications policy as a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

For example, Stevens pushed through legislation in 1996 that created a subsidy for remote telephone service, and he has fought efforts to dilute Alaska’s sizable share of the subsidy. Alaska Communications considers the subsidy, called the universal service fund, an important revenue source.

Alaska Communications Chairman Charles Robinson said, “The universal service fund is important to every telephone company in Alaska.” He said Stevens had “done a great job in preserving it.”

The senator said his actions had “benefited all Alaskans and all Alaska communications companies.”

Stevens stands to be an even more valuable ally in 2005, when he’s scheduled to take over as Commerce Committee chairman.

Robinson combined the Fairbanks and Anchorage phone companies to create Alaska Communications in 1999, and took it public in the fall of that year.

As is common before companies go public, a select group of insiders was allowed to buy stock at a bargain price, in this instance $6.15 a share, the documents show. In this group were several financiers and others involved in creating the company, including Bittner, who was and is the company’s Washington lobbyist.

Though she was not on record as an officer or financier for the company, Catherine Stevens ended up with some of the bargain shares. Robinson said he knew she had shares but did not remember how she obtained them.

Alaska Communications issued 42,248 shares to Chamer Co., which Catherine Stevens owns with Bittner, their sister and their mother. She purchased 16,250 of those shares and sold them a year later, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ted Stevens did not report the shares on his ethics report for 1999, the year Chamer acquired them.

Ethics rules require disclosure of activity by a family-owned business, in detail and in the same year a transaction occurs.

The deal was not reported until 2000, after Catherine Stevens had sold her shares, most of them at $9.25, for a profit of at least $47,000.

Rubini, the developer of Centerpoint I, said Chamer also had an interest in that project. He said Chamer put up $250,000 for a 3% short-term stake in Centerpoint I that earned a 15% return on investment.

Records show Chamer also invested $125,000 in an earlier Rubini syndicate.

Stevens did not disclose either of these investments on his Senate financial forms.

Although Senate ethics rules encompass his wife’s financial activities as well as his own, Stevens sought to distance himself from Chamer.

“I have no interest in that company, do not participate in its meetings, nor do I participate in any decisions related to its business activities,” he said Monday. His wife did not respond to telephone messages on Tuesday.

Back in Washington

Stevens continues to push for money and other benefits for Alaskan interests — including nearly $400 million in pending legislation to help tourism, education, the environment, scientific research, roads, fisheries and the war against fetal alcohol syndrome.

There’s also $2.5 million to survey the seabed for a fiber-optic cable connecting Kodiak Island, Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula; Alaska Communications Systems serves both Anchorage and Kodiak.

*

Researcher Mark Madden in Washington assisted in this report. Staff writer Judy Pasternak in Washington also contributed.

Manchester City have completed their squad overhaul – including a fully revamped midfield – to the tune of £458m, a new Premier League record for a summer window.

But that eyewatering sum does not tell the full story.

New Manchester City boss Enzo Maresca received the full backing of director of football Hugo Viana in his first transfer window in charge after replacing Pep Guardiola. Indeed, City’s record transfer fee was twice broken this summer.

A joint-British record £125m was spent on Maresca’s former Chelsea skipper Enzo Fernandez after £116m was committed on Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest. Morocco international Ayyoub Bouaddi, 18, was also brought in for £86m. The trio accounted for the bulk of City’s summer incomings.

The departures of captain Bernardo Silva, 2024 Ballon d’Or winner Rodri, Tijjani Reijnders and Nico Gonzalez means the City midfield has been completely transformed.

Senior club sources are said to be delighted by the business done not only during the past couple of months but in January too, when plans were brought forward to sign long-term targets Antoine Semenyo and Marc Guehi.

And if the clock is rewound further back, Manchester City‘s rebuild of the team that won the 2023 Champions League really began in January 2025 after a difficult start to that season.

Just four players remain from the starting eleven and substitutes from the night they beat Inter Milan in Istanbul to win the continent’s biggest club prize.

Maresca now has the luxury of calling upon two established players in almost every position. City feel the squad is stronger at this point than at the beginning of last season which they believe has been achieved by remaining calm and trusting the transfer strategy.

However some big questions remain.

How will their new midfield signings all fit together?

And, despite the vast amount of money spent, have they actually left themselves without a back-up to Erling Haaland?

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked U.S. President Donald Trump‘s latest attempt at limiting birthright citizenship, saying Trump’s order “is almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Trump signed two executive orders related to the topic on Aug. 6, about a month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his earlier order banning birthright citizenship.

One of the August orders expanded the list of non-citizens whose children would not be granted citizenship automatically. These categories include children of whom either parent is “an alien enemy” or “a foreign government employee.”

The other would ban so-called birth tourism, which is when a traveler enters another country specifically to give birth there for citizenship reasons – a practice that is already illegal.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman said in Wednesday’s ruling that the August executive orders are likely unconstitutional “for the simple reason that the Supreme Court … already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth” in its June ruling.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them,” Boardman wrote.

Birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In its June decision, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 against Trump’s original executive order, which sought to end birthright citizenship for any children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens.

Chief Justice John Roberts said there was “scant evidence” for Trump’s interpretation of the principles of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War to protect the rights ofthe formerly enslaved.

“Citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “… We keep that promise today.”

Trump said the Supreme Court ruling “was too bad for our Country” and called on Congress to pass legislation against birthright citizenship.

The ruling follows a 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court that found Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship was illegal.

A United States federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest effort to roll back birthright citizenship, after the Supreme Court ruled that his last attempt violated the Constitution.

District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday against Trump’s new executive order, which was issued on August 6.

The new order took aim at what Trump has called “birth tourism”, the practice of intentionally giving birth on foreign soil.

It sought to deny citizenship to children of foreign nationals in certain groups, including those accused of engaging in a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship or classified as an “alien enemy”.

Boardman, however, said the order was unconstitutional for the same reason Trump’s previous effort failed. She cited the Supreme Court’s June decision in the case Barbara v Trump.

The order “is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth”, she wrote.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”

In the Barbara case, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that birthright citizenship was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Birthright citizenship confers automatic citizenship on anyone born in the US, outside of a handful of narrow exceptions, such as the children of diplomats or invading armies.

The constitutional basis for birthright citizenship has been upheld in several Supreme Court cases over the years, most notably in US v Wong Kim Ark, the case of an American man born to Chinese parents.

But Trump campaigned for a second term as president on the pledge to crack down on immigration into the country.

One of his promises was to reform the concept of birthright citizenship. Trump and his allies have argued that children of temporary or undocumented immigrants do not qualify for the right, as they are not under the “jurisdiction” of the US.

Since the Supreme Court defeat in June, Trump and his allies have continued to probe for ways to challenge the constitutional protections for birthright citizenship.

Wednesday’s legal challenge was brought by immigrant rights advocates and families, including groups like the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.

They had previously won an injunction from Boardman last year, blocking the Trump administration from enforcing his initial executive order about birthright citizenship.

Last week, Boardman instructed the plaintiffs to revise their complaint to specifically address the second executive order, rather than relying on the same material used for the first.

But she signalled scepticism at the time about the constitutionality of Trump’s latest attempt, calling it “unprecedented”.

“The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth’,” she wrote in Wednesday’s decision.

 GRAMMY-WINNING 90s singer Cassandra Wilson has died aged 70.

The jazz singer died surrounded by family and friends on Wednesday.

The award-winning jazz vocalist from Jackson, Mississippi, worked with the Roots and co-founded the M-Base Collective.

Her manager of 20 years Robert Torre told WBGO: “It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of Cassandra Wilson, the Grammy Award-winning and legendary jazz artist.

“Cassandra Wilson transitioned peacefully at home, surrounded by family, close friends, and her manager.”

Cassandra blended blues, country and folk music into her work.

PRIME LEGACY

Optimus Prime & Eeyore voice actor Peter Cullen’s cause of death revealed

HEALTH SCARE

Lionel Richie, 77, in intensive care after falling ill on stage during concert

The singer was nominated for four Grammys, and won two in the Best Jazz Vocal Album.

Cassandra won for her 1997 album New Moon Daughter and for her 2007 album Loverly.

She was described by critic Gary Giddins as “a singer blessed with an unmistakable timbre and attack who has expanded the playing field”.

Cassandra was named as a Jazz Master in 2022 by the National Endowment of the Arts.

Tributes flooded in for the star, with fellow NEA Jazz Master Dorthaan Kirk saying she is “devastated” by the loss.

She said they were like family and Cassandra called her “Mother Kirk”.

Dorthaan said: “I’m just devastated. Cassandra completely related to me because she looked up to me as an elder and somebody that was in the business.”

Cassandra took up piano at six, guitar at 12 and launched her career as a vocalist in the 70s, moving to the Big Apple the next decade where she became one of the founding members of the M-Base Collective.

She later signed with Blue Note Records in 1992 and released her seminal album titled Blue Light ‘Till Dawn.

The singer collaborated on albums with Coleman, Greg Osby, and Wynton Marsalis.

Cassandra sang as the character Leona in Marsalis’ recording of his Blood on the Fields oratorio, which became the first jazz composition to win a Pulitzer Prize.

She was a guest vocalist on the Roots’ Silent Treatment and One Shine.

And star collaborators on her own work included Elvis Costello, John Legend, Jon Batiste and Ravi Coltrane.

She told The New York Times in 1994: “I continue to choose the path I take musically,

“And it’s not motivated by becoming famous or having a lot money, or any other pop motivation.”

Gov. George Deukmejian named on Monday Ventura County Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Yegan to join the state 2nd District Court of Appeal, fulfilling the judge’s longtime dream of becoming an appeals court justice.

If a judicial review panel confirms Yegan’s nomination to the court’s 6th Division on Dec. 27, he will replace Justice Richard W. Abbe, who retired Nov. 28 after eight years on the three-member court.

“If I get confirmed on the 27th, I’ll take the oath right on the spot and hope to report to work the next day,” said Yegan, 43, of Westlake.

The review panel, composed of Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Lucas, Atty. Gen. John K. Van De Kamp and presiding 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Lester Roth, is scheduled to meet next week in Los Angeles to discuss Yegan’s qualifications.

If confirmed, he will consider appeals cases from Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties with Justices Steven J. Stone and Arthur Gilbert, who have served on the 6th Division bench since it was established in 1982.

“Without even thinking about it, I’m really ecstatic about the appointment,” said Gilbert, who has reviewed Yegan’s Superior Court opinions on appeal and worked with him when Yegan served as a temporary appeals justice in the summer of 1986.

“I think he’s as good as you can get. He’s just first-rate,” Gilbert said. “He supports his point of view with well-reasoned statements of decision on the Superior Court, and he did the same thing when he was here.”

Stone said Yegan has a reputation for being able to handle all levels of appeals work, from doing legal research to writing the final draft of opinions.

“I have a lot of respect for Ken and I think that he will work very well with us,” Stone said. “I’m looking forward to it.”

Yegan said that Deukmejian called him Friday to offer him the seat. He said the governor swore him to secrecy until Monday, but gave him permission to tell his family.

“My wife was home with my oldest daughter and she was screaming, and my daughter was screaming,” Yegan said. “After they calmed down a little bit she asked me if I could pick up my youngest daughter from ballet and asked if I could go to the store and pick up some things. . . .and that’s when I knew things hadn’t changed.”

The focus of Judge Yegan’s work has not changed much from his first days in law. He said he has been fascinated by appeals work ever since law school.

“I took all the courses I could in law school in appellate practice,” Yegan said. “It’s intellectually challenging and it’s very stimulating to figure out where the facts meet the law and. . . .which is the better-reasoned opinion.”

Yegan graduated in 1972 from the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and began work as a deputy in the Ventura County public defender’s office, handling trials and appellate cases.

Beginning in 1975 he worked as a senior attorney in the appeals court’s 5th Division in Los Angeles, researching cases and helping justices write opinions. In January, 1983, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed him to the Ventura County Municipal Court.

Deukmejian elevated him to the Superior Court in July 1986, where he tried criminal, civil and cases appealed from Municipal Court.

In recent months, Yegan said, letters urging his nomination have flowed into the governor’s office from County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, Sheriff John V. Gillespie, three Supreme Court justices and a variety of appeals court justices, trial court judges and lawyers.

Abbe said of Yegan’s appointment: “His work when he was. . . .here was excellent. He was knowledgeable, he was able to evaluate cases quickly and accurately and make sensible decisions.”

British number one Katie Boulter endured a “bad day at the office” as she won just one game in a 58-minute demolition by Karolina Muchova in the US Open second round.

The match, originally scheduled to be played on one of the outer courts, was moved to the 14,000-capacity Louis Armstrong Stadium after heavy rain in New York.

But fans who had counted themselves lucky to have gained a third match on their day session ticket may have been left feeling short-changed, as Boulter fell to a swift 6-1 6-0 defeat by the Czech seventh seed.

“Ultimately, it was a bad day at the office – times two,” said Boulter.

“I struggled with the conditions. I struggled with the roof, the noise, I let things distract me.

“I let it get to me. I’m not usually aware of everything going on. It made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. I have to deal with it better.”

Fellow Briton Jacob Fearnley also failed to reach the third round as he suffered a 6-3 6-3 3-6 6-3 loss to Argentina’s Tomas Martin Etcheverry.

But Francesca Jones had better fortune as she returned to win her first-round match against Poland’s Magda Linette after it was interrupted by rain on Tuesday.

Boulter’s serve let her down as she hit eight double faults and no aces, while she won just 33% of points behind her first serve.

Unable to fend off any of the seven break points she faced, the 30-year-old was not helped by an unforced error count of 22 compared to just four winners.

In comparison, Wimbledon runner-up Muchova landed 14 winners and just nine unforced errors as she impressed with smart drop shots and piercing groundstrokes.

“I would be really humbled [if I was Boulter], I would sit down with my team and say ‘OK, we need to change something big time’,” former world number five Daniela Hantuchova told BBC Radio 5 Live.

“First of all, it was very obvious today that it was the serve. I feel like it needs to be cleared up because she was losing the rhythm and not using her legs. That’s the number one thing.

“If I am Boulter, I would be on the practice court tomorrow. If she still wants to invest everything into her tennis then she needs to be on the court.”

Boulter has had plenty to celebrate in her personal life this summer after marrying Australia’s Alex de Minaur, the world number seven, in July.

However, it has been a disappointing tennis season for the world number 62, with just two wins across the four Grand Slam tournaments.

Since suffering a first-round exit at Wimbledon, Boulter has won just two of the six matches she has played.

Spain faces unrest as residents protest, while migrants and asylum seekers search for shelter and resources in Ceuta.

Thousands of protesters have rallied across Spain against the ongoing migrant crisis in Ceuta, a small Spanish territory on the African coast.

Roughly 50,000 people gathered in Madrid alone on Wednesday. In Ceuta itself, residents draped Spanish and city flags over their shoulders.

“Expel the invaders” and “Ceuta is not for sale, Ceuta must be defended” were among the crowd’s chants.

The protests fell on Ceuta Day, a local holiday that marks the Portuguese takeover of the North African city in the 15th century.

They also come a little more than a month after more than 70,000 migrants and asylum seekers crossed en masse from Morocco into Ceuta on July 30 and 31. The deadly surge killed at least 80 people.

While many of the arrivals have returned to Africa, some remain. Estimates vary as to how many. The Spanish government places the figure at about 5,000 people, including 1,200 minors, but local statistics have a higher count.

Among those who remain stranded in the Spanish territory is Otman Ianaya, 40. He swam to Ceuta with his wife and two young daughters, searching for better prospects.

“There is no work in Morocco,” he told the news agency AFP. “I want to build a future in my life.”

Some migrants and asylum seekers sleep on Ceuta’s beaches. The Spanish government has worked to expand emergency housing and increase funds to social services, but critics have blasted the effort as inadequate to answer the needs of so many people.

The strain has sparked isolated instances of violence, including fights, the stoning of a military patrol and reports of sexual assault.

Residents in Ceuta have also clashed with police and burned items belonging to migrants and asylum seekers, in protest of the influx of people.

“The situation has been chaotic, so much so that you can’t go out onto the street,” said Gema Guillen, a protester.

The July incident has also underscored political schisms.

Ceuta’s regional leader, Juan Jesus Vivas, represents Spain’s conservative Popular Party and has called the crisis a “violation of Spain’s territorial integrity”.

Meanwhile, Spain’s territorial policy minister, Angel Victor Torres, has accused the conservative and far-right opposition of exploiting the crisis “to attack the government of Spain” instead of helping the city.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has blamed the surge on a misread court ruling and online disinformation that he said encouraged people to cross the border.

He also said negative coverage of the crisis has since been amplified by Russian and Israeli-linked accounts, though he did not offer proof, instead citing findings from Spain’s intelligence community.

Madrid has pledged 309 million euros ($357m) in aid for Ceuta.

Amid the standoff, while some migrants are looking for economic opportunities, others are seeking asylum to escape alleged persecution back home.

“They are people in a vulnerable situation; we need to have a little bit of empathy,” said Halima Ahmed of Luna Blanca, a nongovernmental organisation that distributes food and aid to migrants and asylum seekers.

“People are tired, people are fed up… but that does not justify any type of violence,” she added.

After a gruelling five-week murder trial, Lindsay Clancy’s fate rests with 12 anonymous jurors. And they cannot make up their minds.

The jury of nine women and three men have told the judge, two days in a row, that they cannot reach a unanimous decision. Despite the judge’s continued urging that jurors keep at it, the struggle has raised the prospect of a mistrial in Clancy’s case.

“It is desired that the case be decided,” Judge William Sullivan told the panel on Wednesday afternoon, after members sent him a second note saying they are undecided after five days.

He read a mandatory, formal set of instructions and sent them back – some with frustrated expressions on their faces.

The 36-year-old former nurse does not dispute that she killed her two sons and daughter in 2023 in the basement of their family home in Massachusetts. But her lawyer argues she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, and therefore could not distinguish right from wrong.

The prosecution claimed Clancy made a calculated, intentional decision to kill them and knew right from wrong in that moment. She is charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

Under US law, the jury must unanimously reach a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If they cannot, the judge can call a mistrial, which ends the trial with no verdict.

This jury has several outcomes to choose from. Potential verdicts include not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter.

Jim Thornton, the longtime announcer for the popular game show “Wheel of Fortune,” has been suspended following unspecified allegations.

“We have recently been made aware of allegations concerning Jim Thornton,” a spokesperson for Sony Pictures Television Studios told The Times. “He has been suspended from ‘Wheel of Fortune’ and we are recasting while we conduct a thorough investigation.”

Sony Pictures did not specify the reason for the suspension.

The allegations could possibly stem from an incident that occurred in May aboard a commercial American Airlines flight to Los Angeles, TMZ reported, when a passenger complained about Thornton to a flight attendant.

American Airlines told TMZ that a passenger was met by law enforcement upon arrival at Los Angeles International Airport on May 14, although the airline did not identify the individual.

Thornton’s attorney told the outlet that the 61-year-old “did not engage in any illegal conduct, was not arrested and has not been charged with any crime.”

“When questioned about the complaint made by a fellow passenger on the flight, law enforcement spoke to him for five minutes or less, immediately determined that no wrongdoing had occurred and told my client he was free to go,” his attorney continued.

Thornton joined “Wheel of Fortune” in 2011 following the death of announcer Charlie O’Donnell.

Thornton’s credits include “The Price Is Right,” “The Soup,” “Jeopardy!” and “Celebrity Wheel of Fortune.” Thornton’s voice was also been featured in the 2001 animated hit “Monsters, Inc.,” and video games including “Wall-E” and “Mafia II.”

DES MOINES — A feud began brewing Saturday between the presidential campaigns of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) after published accounts that Biden had used part of a speech by a prominent British politician without giving him credit.

Biden acknowledged using the Briton’s lines without attribution. He said it had occurred only once, that he had been pressed for time and that “if I’d have thought, I would have attributed it to him.” But Biden said he had done no wrong, was not sorry–and had not even made a mistake.

Nevertheless, Biden said he would not do it again.

Sources in Biden’s campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they suspected Gephardt’s organization of pointing out to reporters that Biden had used lines virtually verbatim from a British television commercial containing excerpts from a speech by Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Joseph Trippi, Gephardt’s deputy national campaign manager, said: “It wasn’t us.”

Still, the incident served to further sour relations between the Biden and Gephardt campaigns.

“It is entirely possible,” said Eric Woolson, Biden’s press secretary in Iowa, “that this will only add to whatever less-than-great feelings that exist between the two campaigns right now. It is obvious from our standpoint that one of the other campaigns feels like Joe Biden is gaining on them.”

If Biden’s opponents and media commentators seize on this episode as a case of plagiarism, it would pose a threat to Biden’s candidacy because it would raise the issue of character, the same issue that drove then-front-runner Gary Hart from the Democratic presidential race last May.

The disclosure of Hart’s rendezvous with model Donna Rice focused attention on what his critics regarded as a character defect–womanizing. If the Biden episode is viewed as plagiarism, it would tend to support allegations that his personality is flawed by a lack of verbal discipline.

In his eagerness to get attention for his candidacy, Biden’s critics contend, he indulges in wisecracks, hyperbole and a lack of candor.

For example, as recently as Friday, at a forum for candidates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Biden, along with the other Democratic candidates present, opposed tuition tax credits. Biden said he had never voted for them.

However, according to a legislative report card issued by the National Education Assn., Biden voted in 1978 against an amendment that would have deleted tuition tax credits.

Didn’t Recall Vote

After the forum, Biden said he did not remember such a vote.

The dispute Saturday over Biden’s use of part of the Kinnock TV commercial came after newspapers, including the Des Moines Register and the New York Times, published stories pointing out that Biden had taken lines from Kinnock for his closing statement in a debate at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 23.

The British Labor Party broadcast the Kinnock commercial during its campaign last May against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Tories. Despite Labor’s loss, the commercial, put together by the director of the movie “Chariots of Fire” and using music written by the composer of the “Chariots of Fire” theme, was credited with boosting Kinnock, the party’s leader, by nearly 20% in the polls.

Videotapes of the commercial, considered a media classic, were given to Biden and a number of other candidates and journalists by William Schneider, political consultant for the Los Angeles Times, who was in London to write about the British election.

Biden ‘Truly Moved’

In a telephone interview with The Times, Biden said the commercial “truly moved me.”

He cited Kinnock’s eloquence with the music as background. Speaking to an audience in his native Wales, the British political leader asked: “Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?” Pointing to his wife, he went on: “Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?”

Then, referring to Welsh coal miners among his ancestors, he asked why they had not prospered. “Did they lack talent? Those people who could sing and play and recite and write poetry? Those people who could make wonderful, beautiful things with their hands? Those people who could dream dreams, see visions? Why didn’t they get it? Was it because they were weak? Those people who could work eight hours underground and then come up and play football? Weak?

“Does anybody really think that they didn’t get what we had because they didn’t have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.”

A Democratic Platform

Those lines, Biden said, “remind me of what the Democratic Party stands for–that we give people a platform, a place to stand.”

In his closing statement at the Iowa State Fair debate, Biden began:

“I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?”

Indicating his wife, he added: “Why is it that my wife, who is sitting out there in the audience, is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I’m the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?”

Then, referring to his Irish kin, he said: “Those same people who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me how to sing verse? Is it because they didn’t work hard? My ancestors, who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? No, it’s not because they weren’t as smart. It’s not because they didn’t work as hard. It’s because they didn’t have a platform upon which to stand.”

In his interview with The Times, Biden conceded that he had not given Kinnock credit for the lines during his appearance at the fair.

“It was a two-minute closing,” Biden said. “There wasn’t a single thing wrong with what I did. The only thing that made it happen was time–the absolute two minutes. . . . If I’d have thought, I would have attributed it to him.”

Biden said the parallels between himself and Kinnock are true.

“So what if I didn’t attribute it to Kinnock? I can’t quite understand this. If I was making up who I was, then that’s one thing,” he said. “I’m quite frankly confused by the whole thing. Even if I didn’t (cite Kinnock), I do not understand what the big deal is. I guess I’m beginning to understand.”

In retrospect, Biden said, he would rather that he had credited Kinnock.

He agreed it would have been better to do so. Biden said he would go on using Kinnock’s lines–and to give him credit each time. “At a minimum I’m going say, ‘To paraphrase Neil Kinnock. . . .’

‘It Wasn’t Wrong’

“Am I sorry? No. Why would I be? First, it wasn’t wrong, secondly it wasn’t a mistake. And thirdly, it’s much to do about nothing.”

Biden called the dispute “a cheap shot.”

He said he had used Kinnock’s lines before his Iowa State Fair appearance and has used them in his speeches since–each time with full credit. At the state fair, Biden said, was the only time he had not cited his source.

Biden staffers produced an audio tape of Biden’s crediting Kinnock in Okoboji, Iowa, on Aug. 29. On the slightly garbled tape, Biden can be heard to say: “There was an advertisement in the last election (in Britain) and I was sent a copy of it. This advertisement for Neil Kinnock, the Labor Party candidate, expressed for me the best way to quickly say” what it is like to be a Democrat.

“And I apply it to myself,” Biden says on the tape.

Credit on Videotape

The Biden staffers also planned to produce a videotape of his appearance in Sioux City, Iowa, on Aug. 14, during a reception at the Siouxland Senior Center, where he spoke before a crowd of about 300. The Sooland Cable station filmed his address, in which he also is said to have credited Kinnock.

The Boston Globe on Aug. 30 said Biden acknowledged Kinnock when he used his lines in an address in New Hampshire. “Biden premiered his new theme, with credits to Neil Kinnock, the Labor Party leader,” the Globe story says.

Biden counts using Kinnock’s lines–with credit–about 20 times.

Although the Iowa fair appearance was a much larger gathering–nationally televised by C-SPAN, a cable network, and attended by numerous national reporters–Biden estimated that 20% of those in attendance had already heard him give Kinnock credit just a week earlier at a large Democratic Party event, called the Iowa Corn Boil.

In its story about Biden’s fair appearance, the Des Moines Register said it had been given a videotape by “an aide to one of Biden’s opponents, who spoke on the condition that he would not be named.” The Register called it “a novel use of video technology, to try to discredit a candidate.”

Staff writer Robert Shogan contributed to this story.

The NBA handed down sweeping penalties to Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, team executives, the team and star Kawhi Leonard following an investigation into allegations the group circumvented the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The Clippers said in a statement that they “vehemently reject the NBA’s findings” and vowed to challenge them. Leonard issued a statement saying he had no direct knowledge of the rule violations.

The findings announced Wednesday, the result of a nearly yearlong investigation conducted by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, a high-powered New York law firm, determined the Clippers broke NBA rules by initiating off-court income opportunities between Leonard and four companies doing business with the team: Aspiration Partners, Boingo Wireless, Daktronics and Lockton Insurance.

The firm’s report stated that the Clippers facilitated endorsement agreements between the companies and Leonard, induced the companies to enter into the agreements by offering them business from the team, paid personal expenses on behalf of Leonard and his representatives and failed to report improper solicitations for off-court income made on Leonard’s behalf by Dennis Robertson, his then-business manager.

The investigation found Leonard received $66 million in endorsement pay from four companies facilitated by Ballmer and Clippers executives at the behest of the star’s then-manager. Ballmer invested $60 million in Aspiration and three other companies received $22 million from the Clippers in consulting fees.

As a result, the NBA issued the following sanctions:

• The Clippers are forfeiting first-round draft picks, one apiece in the 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 NBA drafts.
• The Clippers are fined $30 million.
• Ballmer is suspended from all league and team activities for one year for “knowingly seeking to help Leonard obtain off-court income opportunities, for approving a business deal that he knew was a precondition for Aspiration to enter into an endorsement agreement with Mr. Leonard, and for his failure to create conditions under which his organization abided by the NBA’s circumvention rules.”
• Clippers president of business operations Gillian Zucker is suspended without pay for one year for “being primarily and directly culpable for the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for providing false and misleading statements to investigators.”
• Clippers president of basketball operations Lawrence Frank is suspended without pay for six months for “his involvement with the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for approving impermissible expenses incurred by Mr. Leonard and his family.”
• The Clippers organization and personnel are subject to a compliance and monitoring program overseen by the league office for five years.
• Leonard is required to pay the league $700,000.
• Dennis Robertson, Leonard’s uncle and previous business manager, is banned from conducting business or otherwise engaging with NBA teams and their affiliates on behalf of or with respect to any player, employee or other league or team personnel for a period of five years.

The Clippers said in a statement they cooperated fully with the investigation and will fight “to demonstrate our innocence.”

“The NBA’s findings … are the result of a heavily biased investigation seeking to justify a predetermined narrative rather than facts and evidence,” the team statement read. “What the league told us privately differs from what it announced today publicly, and they have not held themselves close to the standard Commissioner [Adam] Silver set at the start of this investigation to ensure it’s fairness and accuracy.”

”… We intend to vigorously challenge these findings and penalties through every avenue available to us and look forward to an ethical and impartial arbitration process.”

The Clippers most likely will have to take their claims to court. A league source not authorized to discuss the sanctions publicly said there is not an arbitration or appeal process available for the team to pursue. Arbitration is reserved for players and the National Basketball Players Association declined to pursue use of it in this case.

The Clippers released a letter sent to Silver arguing Ballmer spent nearly $50 million funding the investigation and cooperated in every way possible.

“Mr. Ballmer’s reputation has been irreparably damaged as he now finds himself embroiled not only in this heavily biased investigation, but in civil litigation, the Aspiration bankruptcy proceeding, and more,” the letter stated. “It seems increasingly likely that Mr. Ballmer will spend years defending himself and the team against a podcaster’s baseless claims.”

Leonard issued a statement denying knowledge of the salary cap violations without contesting the league’s findings.

“I accept full responsibility for lapses in judgment by people within my inner circle and regret the distraction this situation has caused the fans and my family,” Leonard’s statement read. “I entered into my contract with the Clippers as well as the agreements in question in good faith, fully committed to fulfilling my obligations and with no knowledge of any intent on anyone’s part to circumvent the salary cap.

“For 15 years, my priority has been giving everything to my family, the game, and those I share the court with. As I return to Toronto, I am focused on what I can control, closing this chapter, and moving forward with a clean slate.”

It remains unclear whether Leonard’s trade to Toronto, which was put on hold until the NBA investigation was completed, will be finalized.

The probe was triggered when the “Pablo Torre Finds Out” podcast aired an episode Sept. 3, 2025, detailing the contract Leonard received from Aspiration, a self-described “socially-conscious and sustainable banking services and investment products” firm.

The deal with Leonard came to light in Aspiration’s bankruptcy documents. Joseph Sanberg, co-founder of the company, pleaded guilty in October to federal charges of conspiring to bilk investors out of $248 million and on June 1 was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison.

One of the primary investors in Aspiration was Ballmer, the former longtime CEO of Microsoft whose estimated net worth is $139 billion. He has owned the Clippers since 2014.

Ballmer invested $50 million in Aspiration in September 2021. A month later, the Clippers announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with the company. Ballmer nearly granted Aspiration naming rights to the team’s new $2-billion arena, but instead chose financial services firm Intuit.

Two years later when Aspiration was experiencing severe financial difficulties, Ballmer invested an additional $10 million and Clippers co-owner Dennis Wong — Ballmer’s former college roommate — invested $1.99 million in Aspiration nine days before Leonard received a $1.75 million payment from the company. Leonard was paid $21 million of the $28 million agreed upon in his contract with Aspiration.

Leonard was traded to the Toronto Raptors on June 30 for Brandon Ingram, Gradey Dick and a slew of draft picks, but the deal was put on hold pending the outcome of the investigation. Leonard led the Raptors to the NBA championship in 2019.

Leonard would not talk about the allegations during the 2025-26 NBA season because the investigation was ongoing and brushed it off during media day in September 2025.

“None of us did … wrongdoing and, yeah, that’s it,” he said. “We invite the investigation.”

Asked if he performed any endorsement work for Aspiration, Leonard said, “I understand the full contract and services that I had to do. Like I said, I don’t deal with conspiracies or the click-bait analysts or journalism that’s going on.”

Players are allowed to have endorsement and business deals, but at issue was whether the Clippers participated in arranging the side deal beyond simply introducing Aspiration executives to Leonard. Doing so would be a violation of Article 13 of the NBA collective bargaining agreement.

ESPN reported Aug. 17 that NBA investigators had met with Ballmer and other Clippers officials in an attempt to agree to findings before the case went to arbitration. Although ESPN wrote that three sources told reporters the NBA found no evidence showing Ballmer funneled money through team sponsors to pay Leonard to circumvent the salary cap, the NBA immediately pushed back, releasing a statement that read “ESPN’s article regarding the L.A. Clippers investigation — for which the NBA declined to cooperate — contains numerous and significant inaccuracies. The results in this matter will be made clear once the investigation is concluded.”

In his only public comments since the salary cap circumvention accusations first surfaced, Ballmer told ESPN in September 2025 that he was “conned” by Sanberg and Aspiration. He also said he knew nothing of the endorsement deal between the company and Leonard.

“We were done with Kawhi, we were done with Aspiration,” Ballmer said. “The deals were all locked and loaded. Then, they did request to be introduced to Kawhi, and under the rules, we can introduce our sponsors to our athletes. We just can’t be involved.”

Ballmer cannot wipe his hands clean of Aspiration yet. He was added as a defendant in a civil lawsuit against Sanberg and others associated with Aspiration — renamed Catona Climate in 2025 just before the bankruptcy filing — brought by 11 investors in the company. Ballmer and other defendants are accused of fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, with the plaintiffs seeking at least $50 million in damages.