alleging

Apparently, love is blind to a healthy work environment. That’s what’s alleged in a new class-action lawsuit filed this week.

Stephen Richardson, a contestant on Season 7 of the Netflix dating show “Love Is Blind,” is suing the streaming service and the production companies behind the series, alleging they failed to pay overtime and minimum wages and didn’t provide accurate and itemized wage statements and uninterrupted meal periods. The class action was filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Richardson alleges in the lawsuit that producers wrongly classified him and the rest of the cast, who he says regularly worked 20-hour shifts, in order to pay them less. The lawsuit lists Kinetic Content, Delirium TV and Netflix as defendants.

Producers exerted “complete domination over [participants’] time, schedule, and their ability to eat, drink, and sleep, and communicate with the outside world during the period of employment” and further restricted participants’ actions after the show wrapped, the complaint says. The conditions were “unsafe and inhumane,” the lawsuit says.

“Love Is Blind” follows a group of single men and women searching for love the old-fashioned way, by communicating blindly through a wall. Couples are kept from each other until they establish an engagement, which pays off with unexpected facial reactions that express emotions including great dissatisfaction, confusion or a sigh of relief.

In recent years, the show has been hit with similar lawsuits from other former cast members. Last year, Season 5 participant Renee Poche and Season 2 veteran Nick Thompson filed a lawsuit against the production companies after she was penalized for breaching her contract by publicly discussing her experience on the show.

“I am now being sued for $4 million despite earning $8,000 for my participation on the show,” Poche told USA Today.

Poche alleged the production companies were retaliating against her for speaking about the working conditions she endured. After feeling “like a prisoner” while working on the show, she says, she was cut from the final version of the series.

Season 2 cast member Jeremy Hartwell sued Kinetic Content and Netflix in 2022 for allegedly violating labor laws and creating an “unsafe and inhumane” work environment. Then a number of unnamed former cast members spoke to Insider in April 2023, alleging producers subjected them to 20-hour production days, rarely allowed them to go outside, failed to provide adequate food and mental-health services and ignored their pleas for help.

Throughout the years, reality TV has tried to protect itself from real-life lawyers with nondisclosure agreements and provisions requiring disputes be taken to arbitration. The new complaint has Richardson as the named defendant along with “all others similarly situated.”

The accuser is looking for unspecified damages. Richardson, Netflix, Kinetic Content and Delirium TV did not immediately respond Wednesday to The Times’ request for comment.

Underdog conservative channel Newsmax is challenging Rupert Murdoch’s dominant Fox News in court.

Newsmax sued Fox News parent firm Fox Corp. Wednesday, accusing Murdoch’s television company of anti-competitive behavior designed to squeeze rivals to maintain its “unlawful monopolization of the Right-leaning Pay TV News Market.”

Fox has “engaged in an exclusionary scheme to increase and maintain its dominance in the market … resulting in suppression of competition in that market that harms consumers, competition and Newsmax Broadcasting,” the Boca Raton, Fla., firm said in its federal lawsuit filed in Miami.

Politically conservative news is big business, and Murdoch has mined that lucrative niche since launching Fox News in 1996 with network architect Roger Ailes. Newsmax launched as an alternative nearly two decades later, in 2014. By that time, Fox News was well established as the go-to outlet for Republicans and other political conservatives.

In its 31-page complaint, Newsmax accused Fox of using its market clout to discourage pay-TV distributors from carrying or promoting Newsmax and other rival conservative news outlets. Fox allegedly imposed “financial penalties on distributors if they carry Newsmax” in basic cable packages, and other obstacles, including charging higher fees or requiring carriage of “little-watched channels like Fox Business,” according to the lawsuit.

“But for Fox’s anticompetitive behavior, Newsmax would have achieved greater pay TV distribution, seen its audience and ratings grow sooner, gained earlier ‘critical mass’ for major advertisers and become, overall, a more valuable media property,” Newsmax said in its lawsuit.

Newsmax became a publicly traded company earlier this year. It raised $75 million through its initial public offering, but its stock, which entered the market at about $83 a share, closed Wednesday down nearly 1% to $13.86.

Fox News scoffed at the lawsuit.

“Newsmax cannot sue their way out of their own competitive failures in the marketplace to chase headlines simply because they can’t attract viewers,” the network said in a statement.

Newsmax, in its complaint, argued that Fox throws its weight around when striking deals with digital media platforms, including Hulu + Live TV, DirecTV+, Sling TV and YouTube TV, which now make up about 30% of the pay-TV market. As a result, some pay-TV providers have little incentive to carry or promote Newsmax, the lawsuit alleges.

Fox’s commanding position has allowed the company to extract “supra-competitive carriage fees,” according to Newsmax. Fox charges pay-TV distributors nearly $2.20 per subscriber per month to carry Fox News. That’s double CNN’s fees and about six times MSNBC’s carriage fee, Newsmax said.

“These inflated costs have been or likely will be passed on to consumers,” Newsmax said in a statement.

Fox News consistently beats CNN and MSNBC in the Nielsen ratings. It was the No. 1 traditional TV network overall in July, beating ABC, NBC and CBS, according to Nielsen.

Newsmax also alleged Fox News resorts to intimidation campaigns, including pressuring guests not to appear on Newsmax. “It also hired private investigators targeting Newsmax executives to damage the company’s credibility,” according to a Newsmax statement.

Newsmax, in its lawsuit, contends the market is not the universe of cable news channels, including CNN and MSNBC. Instead, it contends the politically conservative news space is a market unto itself, controlled almost entirely by Fox.

“Right-leaning pay TV news has been a cornerstone of American television, drawing tens of millions of viewers who identify with, or prefer, right-leaning perspectives on politics, current events, and cultural debates,” the Newsmax lawsuit said.

“A large segment of consumers of political news and media seeks news, commentary, and analysis that aligns with or speaks to their political viewpoints,” the lawsuit said. “These right-leaning viewers treat other right-leaning news channels as their next best substitute — and do not consider left-leaning news outlets as adequate substitutes for right-leaning news channels.”

Newsmax is seeking a jury trial and unspecified financial damages. It also wants a judge to declare Fox’s conduct unlawful under the Sherman Act and Florida’s anti-competition laws and prevent Fox from striking exclusionary contracts.

“This lawsuit is about restoring fairness to the market and ensuring that Americans have real choice in the news they watch,” Newsmax Chief Executive Christopher Ruddy said in a statement.

A former labor relations employee at Netflix is suing the company, claiming she was wrongfully terminated after raising concerns over her superiors’ discrimination against women of color and allegations of sexual harassment.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that the employee’s managers broke laws and policies that protect employees from race- and gender-based discrimination, and from retaliation for reporting alleged discrimination or harassment.

Nhu-Y Phan was hired at Netflix as legal counsel in labor relations in May 2021. She was fired due to “unspecified performance issues” in September 2024, her lawsuit said. According to the complaint, Phan had never been subject to any discipline and had received overwhelmingly positive performance reviews and feedback throughout her time at the company.

She is seeking punitive damages, emotional distress damages, past and future lost income and other forms of relief, as well as a jury trial.

A Netflix spokesperson said in a brief statement the claims outlined in the suit “lack merit and we intend to defend this matter vigorously.”

For the first year of her Netflix career, Phan was supervised by Ted Sinclair, who is named as a defendant in the suit. Phan alleges that Sinclair repeatedly excluded her and other women of color on her team from professional opportunities that he offered to white colleagues, and that he “encouraged a white employee” to take credit for her work.

Phan made multiple verbal and written complaints about this unequal treatment, including through meetings with both the human resources department and with Sinclair directly, but was still denied opportunities, the lawsuit said. She asked to be removed from Sinclair’s direct supervision in the summer of 2022.

Later, a female colleague confided in Phan, alleging that her new supervior, Jonah Cozien, was sexually harassing her, the complaint said. Cozien is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Phan reported the behavior to human resources, and after doing so, Cozien became “frequently hostile” toward her, limiting her professional opportunities and giving her critical feedback despite never having provided feedback before she made the report, according to the suit.

Sinclair and Cozien did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and their lawyers could not be identified.

After Phan was fired, her lawyers say Netflix filed a lawsuit against her to compel arbitration. Brian Olney, one of the attorneys from Pasadena-based Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai who is representing Phan, said forcing her into arbitration proceedings is a violation of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which became law in 2022.

Because records in arbitration are protected, employers that have arbitration clauses in their employment contracts can avoid public attention on cases involving sexual harassment and assault. The House Judiciary Committee said passing the law would bring justice to victims who were “locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that often favors the company over the individual.”

“Netflix fired Nhu Phan and tried to force her into secretive arbitration proceedings to silence her voice,” Olney said in a statement. “With her lawsuit, she is standing up to this corporate bully and their outrageous and despicable conduct.”

NEW YORK — New York City’s former interim police commissioner is suing Mayor Eric Adams and his top deputies, accusing them of operating the NYPD as a “criminal enterprise.”

In a federal racketeering lawsuit filed Wednesday, the ex-commissioner, Thomas Donlon, alleges Adams and his inner circle showered unqualified loyalists with promotions, buried allegations of misconduct and gratuitously punished whistleblowers.

It is the latest in a series of recent lawsuits by former NYPD leaders describing a department ruled by graft and cronyism, with swift repercussions for those who questioned the mayor’s allies.

In a statement, City Hall spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus called the allegations “baseless,” blasting Donlon as a “disgruntled former employee who — when given the opportunity to lead the greatest police department in the world — proved himself to be ineffective.”

Donlon, a longtime FBI official, was appointed last fall by Adams to stabilize a department shaken by federal investigations and high-profile resignations.

He stepped down less than a month into the job, after federal authorities searched his home for decades-old documents that he said were unrelated to his work at the department.

During his brief tenure, Donlon said he uncovered “systemic corruption and criminal conduct” enabled by Adams and carried out by his hand-picked confidants who operated outside the department’s standard chain of command.

Their alleged corruption triggered a “massive, unlawful transfer of public wealth,” the suit alleges, through unearned salary increases, overtime payments, pension enhancement and other benefits.

In one case, Donlon said he caught the department’s former top spokesperson, Tarik Sheppard, improperly using his rubber signature to give himself a raise and promotion. When Donlon confronted him, Sheppard allegedly threatened to kill him.

Later, when Donlon’s wife was involved in a minor car accident, Sheppard leaked personal family details to the press, according to the lawsuit.

Sheppard, who left the department in May, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit also accuses police leaders of blocking internal investigations requested by Donlon and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities. And it outlines several instances in which officers with little experience — but close connections to Adams’ allies — received promotions, sometimes in exchange for favors.

The lawsuit names Adams and eight current and former high-ranking NYPD officials, including Chief of Department John Chell and Deputy Mayor Kaz Daughtry.

It calls for a federal takeover of the NYPD and unspecified damages for Donlon, whose professional reputation was “deliberately destroyed,” according to the suit.

Before joining the NYPD, Donlon spent decades working on terrorism cases for the FBI, including the investigation into the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He also led New York state’s Office of Homeland Security before going into the private sector security industry.

He was replaced as commissioner by Jessica Tisch, who has pledged to restore trust within the department. But as Adams seeks reelection on a platform touting decreases in crime, he now faces renewed scrutiny over his management of the police force.

Last week, four other former high-ranking New York City police officials filed separate lawsuits against Adams and his top deputies, alleging a culture of rampant corruption and bribes that preceded Donlon’s appointment.

In response to that suit, a spokesperson for Adams said the administration “holds all city employees — including leadership at the NYPD — to the highest standards.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

Mexican Finance Ministry says it has not received evidence to support claims against CIBanco, Intercam and Vector banks.

The United States has imposed sanctions on three Mexican banks, alleging they had been used to launder money for drug cartels.

On Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury tied the banks – CIBanco, Intercam Banco and Vector Casa de Bolsa – to the cross-border trafficking of the deadly synthetic drug fentanyl.

It accused them of playing “a longstanding and vital role in laundering millions of dollars on behalf of Mexico-based cartels and facilitating payments for the procurement of precursor chemicals needed to produce fentanyl”.

The sanctions are part of a wider pressure campaign by the administration of US President Donald Trump against Latin American gangs, criminal networks and drug traffickers.

That campaign has included designating several groups as “foreign terrorist organisations” and using tariffs to pressure Mexico’s government to increase enforcement of irregular traffic across the border.

In a statement, the Treasury Department said the banks were the first to be targeted under new pieces of legislation – the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act – passed to expand its ability to target money laundering related to opioid trafficking.

The sanctions would block transfers between the targeted Mexican banks and US banks, although it was not immediately clear how far-reaching the limits would be.

In a statement, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent accused the banks of “enabling the poisoning of countless Americans by moving money on behalf of cartels, making them vital cogs in the fentanyl supply chain”.

But Mexico’s Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit responded to the sanctions by saying it had yet to receive conclusive evidence justifying them.

“We want to be clear: If we have conclusive information proving illicit activities by these three financial institutions, we will act to the fullest extent of the law,” the Finance Ministry said.

“However, to date, we have no information in this regard.”

CIBanco did not immediately respond to the allegations. The US Treasury Department accused it of being connected to money laundering by the Beltran-Leyva Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) and the Gulf Cartel.

Intercam, which is also accused of having connections to the CJNG cartel, also did not respond.

Meanwhile, the brokerage firm Vector, which was linked to money laundering by the Sinaloa Cartel and Gulf Cartel, said the US claims tying its operations to drug traffickers were false.

“Vector categorically rejects any accusation that compromises its institutional integrity,” the company said in a statement, adding that it would cooperate to clarify the situation.

Tyler Perry is facing legal backlash to the tune of $260 million from an actor who appeared in his BET drama “The Oval” and is accusing the media mogul of quid pro quo sexual harassment, sexual battery and retaliation, among other counts.

Perry’s accuser, actor Derek Dixon, filed his lawsuit against the billionaire film and TV producer in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday. The actor claims Perry leveraged his power and standing in entertainment “to create a coercive, sexually exploitative dynamic with Mr. Dixon — initially promising him career advancement and creative opportunities,” according to court documents reviewed by The Times. Tyler Perry Studios and the And Action production company are listed as co-defendants.

“This is an individual who got close to Tyler Perry for what now appears to be nothing more than setting up a scam,” Perry’s attorney Matthew Boyd said in a statement to The Times. “But Tyler will not be shaken down and we are confident these fabricated claims of harassment will fail.”

In his 46-page complaint, Dixon says he met the “House of Payne” creator in September 2019 when he was working as event staff for one of Perry’s parties. The multi-hyphenate entertainer offered Dixon the chance to audition for his show “Ruthless” a month after their first meeting. Perry claimed he would “change [Plaintiff’s] life” and offered him a small role in the TV series, “setting up the first stage in a series of escalating quid pro quo offers,” the lawsuit alleges.

From January 2020 to June 2024, Perry “sustained a pattern of workplace sexual harassment, assault and retaliation,” the lawsuit alleges. Dixon appeared in 85 episodes of Perry’s presidential drama “The Oval” from 2021 to 2025, according to IMDb.

Dixon accused Perry of relentlessly probing him about his sex life, making suggestive comments and expressing jealousy about his interactions with other men during the duration of their work together. The complaint features multiple screenshots of alleged conversations between Dixon and the media mogul, including messages in which the director asks “What’s it going to take for you to have guiltless sex?” and likens the actor to a rose but says he is “so blocked that you refuse to be smelt [sic] or opened.”

The lawsuit — which evokes cases against Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey and other high-profile Hollywood figures accused of sexual harassment — also details multiple occasions where Perry allegedly groped the actor. The first was in January 2020 when Dixon stayed the night in a guest room at Perry’s home in Georgia and allegedly felt Perry “slip into bed behind him and start rubbing Dixon’s body around his inner thigh in a highly sexual and suggestive manner.” Dixon also accuses Perry of “violently” grabbing his throat in March 2020, groping his buttocks in a trailer later that year, and pulling down his underwear and groping his buttocks again in June 2021.

The complaint underscores that Dixon repeatedly refused Perry’s advances and walked a fine line, keeping his interactions with Perry professional but friendly enough to remain in his good graces. He claims the threat of Perry killing off his character constantly loomed over his “Oval” tenure. In addition to casting Dixon in his series, Perry also expressed interest in helping the actor develop a show, the lawsuit says.

Dixon distanced himself from Perry after the alleged June 2021 assault, the lawsuit says, but the producer’s “fixers” reached out with a new storyline for his “Oval” character and a pay raise. They also allegedly told Dixon he could not tell his castmates about the new perks.

Perry allegedly continued to ask Dixon about his sex life through the years that followed and in March 2024 plans to pitch Dixon’s show began to fall apart. After Perry offered Dixon a writing spot on one of his series in June 2024, Dixon “woke up and realized Perry was never going to be serious about helping Dixon” grow his career, the lawsuit says.

Dixon claims he reported the alleged sexual harassment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but the complaint was not investigated. Dixon left “The Oval” and Perry allegedly retaliated by telling Dixon he could say only that he was taking medical leave. “Defendant made the leave of absence unpaid and therefore terminated Plaintiff’s employment causing Dixon additional loss of income and insult,” the suit says.

The lawsuit also includes allegations of work environment harassment, workplace gender violence, sexual assault, negligent retention and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Alleging widespread and egregious violations of housing and tenant laws, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued Southern California real estate tycoon Mike Nijjar in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Thursday.

In the lawsuit, Bonta accused Nijjar, family members and their companies of subjecting tenants to vermin infestations and overflowing sewage, overcharging them and violating anti-discrimination laws.

The suit says that Nijjar is one of California’s largest landlords, operating multibillion dollars in holdings. Nijjar family companies, commonly known as PAMA Management, own 22,000 rental units, primarily in low-income neighborhoods in Southern California.

The suit follows a more than two-year California Department of Justice investigation into Nijjar’s holdings, Bonta said.

“PAMA and the companies owned by Mike Nijjar and his family are notorious for their rampant, slum-like conditions — some so bad that residents have suffered tragic results,” Bonta said in a statement. “Our investigation into Nijjar’s properties revealed PAMA exploited vulnerable families, refusing to invest the resources needed to eradicate pest infestations, fix outdated roofs and install functioning plumbing systems, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs.”

Bonta is seeking penalties against Nijjar and his family business entities, restitution for tenants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and injunctive relief barring Nijjar and PAMA from continuing unlawful business practices.

A representative for Nijjar said he forcefully rejects the claims in the lawsuit.

“The allegations in the complaint are false and misleading, and its claims are legally erroneous,” Nijjar attorney Stephen Larson said in a statement. “We look forward to demonstrating in court that Mr. Nijjar and his companies are not only compliant with the law, but they provide an extraordinary service to housing those disadvantaged and underserved by California’s public and private housing markets.”

Nijjar’s real estate empire has long been on authorities’ radar.

In 2020, LAist detailed wide-ranging dangerous conditions at Nijjar’s properties dating back years, including a fire at a PAMA-owned mobile home in Kern County that resulted in the death of an infant. The mobile home was not permitted for human occupancy, according to the report and Bonta’s lawsuit. Two years later, The Times wrote a series of stories about Chesapeake Apartments, a sprawling 425-unit apartment complex in South L.A., where Nijjar’s tenants complained of sewage discharges, regular mold and vermin infestations and shoddy repairs. Chesapeake had the most public health violations of any residential property in L.A. County over the previous five years, according to a Times analysis at the time.

Prior attempts at accountability for Nijjar and his companies have been spotty and ineffective. After the 2016 mobile home fire that killed the infant in Kern County, the California Department of Real Estate revoked the licenses associated with Nijjar’s company at the time. In response, Nijjar and family members reorganized their business structure, the suit said.

The L.A. city attorney’s office resolved a nuisance abatement complaint against PAMA at Chesapeake in 2018, only for the widespread habitability problems to emerge. A similar case filed by the city attorney’s office against a PAMA property in Hollywood remains in litigation more than three years after it was filed. In the meantime, Nijjar’s companies have settled multiple habitability lawsuits filed by residents.

Bonta said that PAMA has taken advantage of lax and piecemeal accountability efforts and its low-income tenants’ vulnerability. Most residents, he said, have low or fixed incomes with few alternatives other than to endure the shoddy conditions in their rentals.

The lawsuit alleges that the habitability problems at PAMA properties are “ongoing business practices” — the result of decisions to make cheap repairs rather than necessary investments in maintenance, the use of unskilled handymen, lack of staff training and failure to track tenant requests.

“Nijjar and his associates have treated lawsuit after lawsuit and code violation after code violation as the cost of doing business and have been allowed to operate and collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year from families who sleep, shower, and feed their children in unhealthy and deplorable conditions,” Bonta said. “Enough is enough.”

Besides tenants’ living conditions, the suit alleges Nijjar and PAMA have induced residents into deceptive leases, discriminated against tenants on public assistance programs and issued unlawful rent increases.

The suit contends PAMA’s leases attempt to invalidate rights guaranteed under law, including the opportunity to sue and make repairs the landlord neglected and deduct these costs from the rent. The company has told Section 8 voucher holders that there are no units available when others are being rented to applicants without vouchers, the complaint said.

The case alleges that PAMA has violated California’s rent cap law on more than 2,000 occasions. The law limits rent increases to 5% plus inflation annually at most apartments. PAMA, the suit says, shifted mandatory shared utility costs, which used to be paid by the landlord, onto tenants’ bills in an attempt to evade the cap. The combination of the new utility costs and rent hikes resulted in total increases of up to 20%, more than double the allowable amount, according to the suit.

Cameron told ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan that applying for arrest warrants for Israeli officials would be like ‘dropping hydrogen bomb’, media report says.

Several United Kingdom lawmakers have criticised the previous government over allegations in a recent media report that former Foreign Secretary David Cameron “privately threatened” to defund and withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) over its plans to issue arrest warrants for Israeli officials over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The report, published on Monday by the UK-based outlet Middle East Eye (MEE), cited sources with knowledge of a phone call Cameron allegedly made to ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan on April 23, 2024, after he had given advance notice of his intention to apply for the warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

MEE’s report cited unnamed sources, including former staff in Khan’s office, and had seen minutes of the conversation, claiming that Cameron warned the arrest warrants, which were issued in November that year, would be – in quotes reported by the sources – tantamount to “dropping a hydrogen bomb”, warning that if the ICC went ahead, the UK would “defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute”.

Khan reportedly stood his ground, with sources telling MEE that he said afterwards that he did not like “being pressurised”. “I won’t say if it rises to blackmail – I don’t like being threatened,” he reportedly said, adding that the government was “debasing” the UK with its clear attack on the independence of the court and the rule of international law.

Neither Khan nor Cameron, who was prime minister between 2010 and 2016, and now sits in the House of Lords as a life peer, has commented on the report.

Following the report’s publication, Labour Party MP Zarah Sultana said on X that Cameron “and every UK minister complicit in arming and enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza” should be investigated.

David Cameron — and every UK minister complicit in arming and enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza — must be investigated for war crimes. https://t.co/YYcsmFg1BN

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) June 9, 2025

Scottish National Party MP Chris Law said the allegations were “shocking”, but added the country was “not seeing much better under Labour”.

Shocking that the UK Tory govt tried to undermine the International Criminal Court for investigating those responsible for war crimes in Gaza. However not seeing much better under Labour #GazaGenocide‌ https://t.co/Wd3nK9UkhV

— Chris Law MP (@ChrisLawSNP) June 9, 2025

Bell Ribeiro-Addy, a Labour MP, called for an “independent inquiry into the UK’s role in the Gaza genocide”.

Concerning new allegations, which suggest the last foreign secretary tried to shield Israeli leaders from facing justice for war crimes.

We need an independent inquiry into the UK’s role in the Gaza genocide.https://t.co/JROBHyqtDo

— Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (@BellRibeiroAddy) June 9, 2025

Zack Polanski, the deputy leader of the Green Party, was cited by MEE as saying: “It’s been clear for all to see that both the former and current government have stood with the oppressors, not the marginalised.”

When the ICC applied for the arrest warrants in May last year, the previous Conservative Party government, a strong backer of Israel, decried the move as “not helpful in relation to reaching a pause in the fighting, getting hostages out or getting humanitarian aid in”.

In July, the new Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, dropped the previous Rishi Sunak-led government’s bid to challenge the ICC’s power to seek the warrants, which were issued for Netanyahu, Gallant and three Hamas leaders in November.

Former Los Angeles Times reporter Maya Lau filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Los Angeles County, former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, a former undersheriff and a former detective, alleging that a criminal investigation into her activities as a journalist violated her 1st Amendment rights.

The suit comes less than a year after a Times article revealed that Lau had been the target of an L.A. County Sheriff’s Department probe that “was designed to intimidate and punish Lau for her reporting” about a leaked list of deputies with a history of misconduct, Lau’s attorneys alleged in an emailed statement.

Lau’s suit seeks unspecified damages to compensate her for alleged violations of her dignity and privacy, as well as the “continuous injuries” and anxiety she says in the complaint that she has faced in the wake of the revelation she had been investigated.

The suit details “six different counts of violating Ms. Lau’s rights under the U.S. constitution and California state law, including retaliation and civil conspiracy to deny constitutional rights,” according to the statement by Lau’s attorneys.

“It is an absolute outrage that the Sheriff’s Department would criminally investigate a journalist for doing her job,” Lau said in the statement. “I am bringing this lawsuit not just for my own sake, but to send a clear signal in the name of reporters everywhere: we will not be intimidated. The Sheriff’s Department needs to know that these kinds of tactics against journalists are illegal.”

The Sheriff’s Department said in an emailed statement that it had “not been officially served with this lawsuit” by late Tuesday afternoon.

“While these allegations stem from a prior administration, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department under Sheriff Robert G. Luna is firmly committed to upholding the Constitution, including the First Amendment,” the statement said. “We respect the vital role journalists play in holding agencies accountable and believe in the public’s right to a free and independent press.”

Villanueva said via email that he had not yet reviewed the complaint in full and that “under the advice of counsel, I do not comment on pending litigation.”

“What I can say is the investigation in question, like all investigations conducted by the Public Corruption Unit during my tenure as Sheriff of Los Angeles County, were based on facts that were presented to the Office of the Attorney General,” he said. “It is the political establishment, of which the LA Times is a part, that wishes to chill lawful investigations and criminal accountability with frivolous lawsuits such as this one.”

A spokesperson for the county counsel’s office declined further comment. The other defendants in the lawsuit, former Undersheriff Tim Murakami and former Detective Mark Lillienfeld, did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.

In December 2017, The Times published a story by Lau about a list of about 300 problem deputies. A lengthy case file reviewed by The Times last year found that department investigators launched an initial probe into who provided Lau with the list. The agency’s investigation began when Jim McDonnell was sheriff in 2017. The Sheriff’s Department ultimately dropped the investigation without referring it for proscution after, as Lau’s complaint says, it “turned up no evidence connecting Ms. Lau to any crime.”

The case file reviewed by The Times last year stated that, after Villanueva became sheriff in 2018, he revived the investigation into Lau, which the complaint alleges was part of an “unlawful conspiracy” conducted as part of a policy of “retaliatory criminal charges against perceived opponents of LASD.”

Lillienfeld led the investigation, and Villanueva “delegated to Undersheriff Murakami his decision-making authority” in the probe, which Murakami ultimately referred to the state attorney general’s office for prosecution, Lau’s complaint says. In May 2024, the office declined to prosecute her, citing insufficient evidence.

But Lau alleges that the damage was already done and that her rights under the 1st Amendment and California’s Constitution had been violated. “If LASD’s actions are left unredressed,” according to the complaint, “journalists in Los Angeles will be chilled from reporting on matters of public concern out of fear that they will be investigated and prosecuted.”

The Sheriff’s Department told The Times last year that its probe of Lau was closed and that the department under Luna does not monitor journalists.

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit free speech and press freedom advocacy organization, told The Times last year that reporting on leaked materials involving a matter of public concern is typically “protected under the 1st Amendment” even if a reporter is aware they were obtained illegally.

“You’re not authorized to break into a file cabinet to get records. You’re not authorized to hack computers. But receiving information that somebody else obtained unlawfully is not a crime,” Snyder said.

The saga of the leaked records began in 2014, when Diana Teran compiled a list of deputies with histories of disciplinary problems. Teran was working for the Office of Independent Review, which conducted oversight of the Sheriff’s Department until it closed down that July.

In 2015, Teran was hired by the Sheriff’s Department to serve in an internal watchdog role. In 2017, according to the investigative file reviewed by The Times last year, she heard that Times reporters including Lau had been asking questions about the list.

After investigating further and learning that the reporters had asked about specific details that matched her 2014 list, she grew worried that it had been leaked.

On Dec. 8, 2017, The Times ran an investigation by Lau and two other reporters that described some of the misconduct detailed in the list, from planting evidence and falsifying records to sexual assault. Some of the deputies on the list, the reporters found, had kept their jobs or been promoted.

Sheriff’s department investigators interviewed Teran and other department officials who all denied leaking the list. The investigation was dropped before Villanueva became sheriff in November 2018.

Several months later, Lillienfeld was assigned to investigate allegations that Teran and other oversight officials had illegally accessed department personnel records, reopening the probe into the leaked list.

Lillienfeld’s inquiry produced an 80-page report that was part of the case file reviewed by The Times last year. It detailed potential times when the list could have been leaked by Teran and stated that she denied doing so.

In fall 2021, Murakami sent the 300-page case file – which identified Lau, Teran, L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman, an assistant to Teran and an attorney in Huntsman’s office as suspects – to California Atty. General Rob Bonta. There was no probable cause to prosecute Lau, according to the complaint.

“Undersheriff Murakami alleged that Ms. Lau had engaged in conspiracy, theft of government property, unlawful access of a computer, burglary, and receiving stolen property,” the complaint says. “Ms. Lau did not commit any of these crimes.”

Bonta declined to prosecute the case.

“The retaliatory investigation against Ms. Lau is one example of how Alex Villanueva used the LASD to target and harass his political opponents,” said Justin Hill, an attorney at Loevy & Loevy representing Lau. “Our communities suffer when governmental leaders try to silence journalists and other individuals who hold those leaders accountable. This lawsuit seeks to re-affirm the protected role that journalism plays in our society.”

Top UN court says it does not have authority to rule on case accusing UAE of arming rebel Rapid Support Forces paramilitary.

The top United Nations court has dismissed a case brought by Sudan accusing the United Arab Emirates of breaching the genocide convention by arming and funding the rebel paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in Sudan’s deadly civil war.

The International Court of Justice said on Monday that it “manifestly lacked” the authority to continue the proceedings and threw out the case.

While both Sudan and the UAE are signatories to the 1948 genocide convention, the UAE has a carveout to the part of the treaty that gives The Hague-based court jurisdiction.

In March, Sudan asked the ICJ for several orders, known as provisional measures, including telling the UAE to do all it can to prevent the killing and other crimes targeting the Masalit people in Darfur.

The UAE called the filing a publicity stunt and, in a hearing last month, argued the court had no jurisdiction.

“The case is baseless both legally and factually. The UAE is not involved in the war, and this case is yet another attempt by the Sudanese Armed Forces, one of the warring parties, to distract from its own responsibility,” Reem Ketait, a senior official at the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said in a statement ahead of the decision.

Sudan descended into a deadly conflict in mid-April 2023 when long-simmering tensions between its military and rival paramilitary forces broke out in the capital, Khartoum, and spread to other regions.

Both the Rapid Support Forces and Sudan’s military have been accused of abuses.

The UAE, a federation of seven sheikhdoms on the Arabian Peninsula and a US ally, has been repeatedly accused of arming the RSF, something it has strenuously denied despite evidence to the contrary.

More to follow.