By Brian Todd, Isabelle Khurshudyan, CNN

(CNN) — An Army combat veteran now living in the Midwest was dealing with multiple injuries by the time he finished his military service. He’d suffered a traumatic brain injury after his vehicle struck an IED during his deployment to Afghanistan in the late 2000s.

But when the veteran, who CNN is identifying as Adam, filed his disability compensation claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs, he felt he was failed on two fronts.

First, the VA process was confusing, he said, and it took the department four months to get back to him – to say he didn’t qualify for any benefits. Then he sought help from a company that promised to guide him through the process for a fee, only to still end up with no benefits and a bill for thousands of dollars.

“They pretty much did jack sh*t for me,” said Adam, referring to the outside company. He asked to be identified by a pseudonym to protect his privacy.

Adam’s story is one that has played out with veterans for decades.

Veterans are supposed to be able to get these payments by filing for their benefits directly through the VA, and to get help filling out the paperwork for free from non-profit and government-affiliated groups called veterans service organizations (VSOs), which are accredited by the government to aid them.

Instead, frustrated by cumbersome paperwork and VSOs that are often too inundated with work for timely help, many veterans instead turn to private companies that charge a fee.

Critics call these consultants “claims sharks” – for-profit consultancies that say they help veterans get higher compensation while also taking a cut for themselves. These consultancies operate without accreditation from the VA, a process that includes taking assessments and passing a background check, which is meant to ensure a level of oversight into the process.

At the same time, some for-profit consultancies have been accused of using dishonest tactics to obtain higher fees, whether by overcharging veterans directly, or misrepresenting their clients to the VA to get a bigger cut from higher compensations that are paid out.

The for-profit consultants contend they help veterans get more benefits – which some veterans agree with – and that most veterans come to them because they didn’t get the compensation they believe they were owed from the VA. These companies contend that they are not preparing paperwork for veterans, but simply helping them navigate a complex system, and therefore are not in breach of federal requirements.

A regulatory mish-mash

Bill Taylor, the co-founder of claims consultant Veterans Guardian, argues that companies like his should be allowed to operate within a legal framework, which would also bring more regulation to the industry and cut down on what he described as “predatory practices” from some “bad actors.”

“Not only do we want to protect a veteran’s right to choose, but we can do that while also providing protections,” Taylor said.

Some states have sought to regulate the industry. Last year, Louisiana became the first state to pass a law to regulate unaccredited claims consultants by capping their fees and requiring certain disclosures from them. The bill was modeled after a version that stalled in Congress.

Some for profit consultancies have welcomed these state laws, but VSOs have not.

But last week, a federal court struck down the Louisiana law as unconstitutional. John Wells, a lawyer and director of a veterans’ group that sued the state over the law, argued states shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in the regulation of federal benefits.

“If other states try to institute laws like this, we will take action,” Wells said.

For its part, the “VA continues to examine this issue, and in the meantime, we are working to make it easier for Veterans

Por Em Steck y Matt Egan, CNN

Kathy Ruemmler , directora jurídica de Goldman Sachs, dijo el jueves por la noche que renunciará en medio de las consecuencias de la publicación por parte del Departamento de Justicia de millones de páginas de documentos de Jeffrey Epstein .

Su renuncia se hará efectiva el 30 de junio.

Su anuncio llega en un momento en que en las últimas semanas ha aparecido en numerosas noticias que examinan su relación con el financiero caído en desgracia.

Ruemmler y quienes la rodean han insistido en que tuvo una relación profesional con Epstein.

“Desde que me incorporé a Goldman Sachs hace seis años, he tenido el privilegio de supervisar los asuntos legales, de reputación y regulatorios de la firma; de mejorar nuestros sólidos procesos de gestión de riesgos; y de garantizar que nos guiamos por nuestro valor fundamental de integridad en todo lo que hacemos”, declaró Ruemmler, ex asesora legal de la Casa Blanca durante la era Obama, en una declaración a CNN. “Mi responsabilidad es anteponer los intereses de Goldman Sachs. Hoy mismo, con pesar, informé a David Solomon de mi intención de dimitir como Directora Jurídica y Asesora General de Goldman Sachs a partir del 30 de junio de 2026”.

David Solomon, CEO de Goldman Sachs, declaró a CNN: “A lo largo de su trayectoria, Kathy ha sido una consejera general excepcional, y agradecemos sus contribuciones y su sólido asesoramiento en una amplia gama de asuntos legales relevantes para la firma. Como una de las profesionales más destacadas en su campo, Kathy también ha sido mentora y amiga de muchos de nuestros empleados, y la extrañaremos. Acepté su renuncia y respeto su decisión”.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Abogada principal de Goldman Sachs renuncia tras las consecuencias del escándalo de Epstein appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

Por Dana O’Neil, CNN

Con la bandera ucraniana alrededor de sus hombros y sus colores pintados en la mejilla izquierda, Olha Scherhyna estaba de pie cerca de la cima del Cortina Curling Center y apuntó su teléfono al gran tablero que anunciaba la lista de inicio del skeleton masculino.

Minutos antes, el Comité Olímpico Internacional había anunciado que el ucraniano Vladyslav Heraskevych, corredor de sliders, había sido descalificado de la prueba de skeleton masculina por insistir en usar un casco con la imagen de atletas caídos en la guerra con Rusia.

Mientras los participantes pasaban por delante de Scherhyna en la pizarra, un DNS rojo se situó junto al nombre de Heraskevych al mismo tiempo que la megafonía anunciaba que no participaría.

Usando una aplicación de traducción en su teléfono para compartir sus opiniones, Scherhyna no necesitó ayuda para expresar sus emociones.

Se llevó los puños a los ojos, indicando que sollozaba, antes de que lágrimas de verdad le cayeran por las mejillas. Luego metió la mano en el bolsillo de su chaqueta blanca y sacó un brazalete negro, indicándome que se lo atara.

En su aplicación escribió: “Para Ucrania, él ya es un ganador”.

El COI y Heraskevych mantienen un impasse desde el martes, cuando, durante una carrera de entrenamiento, el atleta usó su casco en honor a los caídos desde la invasión rusa de Ucrania.

La organización afirmó que violó sus directrices sobre la expresión de los atletas. La Regla 50.2 de la Carta Olímpica, que establece la “protección de la neutralidad”, establece que “no se permite ningún tipo de manifestación ni propaganda política, religiosa o racial en ninguna de las instalaciones, sedes u otras áreas olímpicas”.

Heraskevych ha apelado la decisión.

Heraskevych replicó que su casco no se diferenciaba de la fotografía que el patinador artístico estadounidense Maxim Naumov mostró de sus padres fallecidos en un accidente aéreo, y que era simplemente una forma de recordar a sus compañeros.

El COI se empeñó, sugiriendo en cambio que Heraskevych usara un brazalete negro. El patinador se mantuvo firme, declarando a CNN: “Creo que el COI no tiene suficientes brazaletes negros para recordar a todos los atletas que murieron en la guerra”.

El COI esperaba un acuerdo, afirmando que contactaría con Heraskevych antes del inicio de la competición oficial, pero el ucraniano, quien fue el abanderado de su país en la Ceremonia Inaugural, dejó claro que no cedía.

Una hora antes del inicio de las eliminatorias de skeleton, escribió en X: “Nunca quise un escándalo con el COI, y no lo provoqué”. Añadió que solicitaba a la organización que “levantase la prohibición del uso del ‘Casco de Memoria’”.

La presidenta del COI, Kristy Coventry, viajó a Cortina la mañana del jueves con el propósito explícito de reunirse con Heraskevych y su padre, Mykhailo. Coventry afirmó empatizar y respetar el deseo de Heraskevych de honrar a sus compañeros.

“Nadie, nadie, y menos yo, está en desacuerdo con el mensaje”, afirmó. “Es un mensaje poderoso de recuerdo, un mensaje de memoria, y nadie está en desacuerdo con eso… No estamos juzgando si el mensaje es político o no”.

En cambio, dijo, la decisión es un resultado directo de las recomendaciones de la Comisión de Atletas en 2021 que limitaron las oportunidades de los atletas de expresar sus opiniones “en el campo de juego antes del inicio de la competencia”.

“Es porque muchos atletas se acercaron y nos preguntaron: ‘Si abren eso, ¿cómo me protegen?’”, declaró Coventry. “¿Cómo evitan que otros me usen para enviar

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (KEYT)

Girls Basketball First Round:

Division 1: Ventura 59, Notre Dame/SO: Kai Staniland scored 27 points and Brinley Anderson added 24 points as the Cougars improve to 25-4.

St. Bonaventure 43, Thousand Oaks 37: Lucille Devericks scored 12 points for the Seraphs.

St. Anthony 62, Oaks Christian 37

Division 2: Dos Pueblos 53, Los Alamitos 43: Kindah Amad-Reda collected a double-double for the Chargers with 16 points and 12 rebounds. DP hosts San Juan Hills on Saturday at 7 p.m.

Camarillo 54, South Torrance 32

San Clemente 52, San Marcos 29

Division 3: Oxnard 62, Cypress 53: Gia Angell poured in 24 points for the Yellowjackets.

Aliso Niguel 49, Rio Mesa 46

Division 4: Canyon/Anaheim 55, Moorpark 22

Westlake 66, Hesperia Christian 35

Division 5: Bishop Diego 62 Milken Community 54: Eden Wynne scored 22 points and grabbed 8 rebounds for the Cardinals. Bishop plays at Fullerton on Saturday.

Culver City 44, Santa Paula 40

Division 6: Carpinteria 69, San Gabriel Academy 39: Warriors host San Jacinto on Saturday at 7 p.m.

Division 7: Fillmore 31, Hawthorne MSA 29

Foothill Tech 50, Lucerne Valley 24

Villanova Prep 56, Santa Monica Academy 45

Division 8: Yucca Valley 61, Laguna Blanca 20

Santa Ana Valley 54, Providence/SB 10

Division 9: Channel Islands 65, Bethel Christian/R 12

La Sierra 37, Cate 35

Valley Christian Academy 39, Rancho Alamitos 37

Temple City 52, San Luis Obispo Classical 16

Girls Soccer First Round:

Division 1: Westlake 3, Fairmont Prep 2

Rosary Academy 1, Thousand Oaks 1: Rosary Academy advances on PK's

Capistrano Valley 3, Camarillo 2

Division 2: Ayala 3, Buena 0

La Mirada 1, Dos Pueblos 0: Chargers had some late scoring chances but could not get the equalizer

<

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — President Donald Trump’s administration is stepping into high-profile appeals at the Supreme Court without invitation at an unprecedented pace, supporting conservative groups in cases dealing with guns, religion and climate change.

The court regularly invites the Justice Department to offer its view on whether to hear appeals, and recommendations from the solicitor general, the administration’s top appellate attorney, have long carried a special weight at the Supreme Court.

But Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s office is using the relationship more aggressively than in the past, urging the Supreme Court to take on culture war cases that align with the president’s agenda — even when the court has not asked for the Justice Department’s input. The administration has butt into at least five cases without invitation, most recently a potentially significant appeal involving religious preschools.

“It’s using the solicitor general’s unique position as a way to push not just the policy and political agenda of the current president, but the broader ideological agenda of the Republican Party,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

The solicitor general’s office has largely avoided the political turmoil churning through the rest of the Justice Department during Trump’s second term. Like everyone else in the department, Sauer works at Trump’s pleasure — but his position, often referred to as the “10th justice” — has also long been viewed as having a responsibility to the Supreme Court, not just the administration.

And so far, Sauer has managed to successfully balance those sometimes-competing demands. The 6-3 conservative court repeatedly sided with Trump last year, backing the administration 80% of the time on its emergency docket. It is a record that Attorney General Pam Bondi was quick to tout ahead of a fiery confrontation with House Democrats earlier this week.

“We’ve obtained 24 favorable rulings at the US Supreme Court,” Bondi told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday before tacking on a promise. “Even more to come.”

But that dual responsibility can mean added scrutiny if it appears the solicitor general is veering from past practice into more political territory.

When an appeal lands at the Supreme Court, the parties spend weeks submitting written arguments trying to get the vote of the four justices needed to grant an appeal. While third-party groups often submit friend-of-the-court briefs attempting to influence that decision, it is especially notable when the solicitor general does so – in part because of how infrequently it happens.

The five uninvited briefs filed by the Trump administration represented more intervention than previous administrations exercised.

The Biden administration, for instance, did not file any similar briefs in merits cases over four years, though it did submit an unsolicited recommendation in an emergency appeal in 2021 in a death penalty case from Oklahoma. The Clinton administration filed five briefs over eight years in office, according to a review by SCOTUSblog. Only two were filed during Trump’s first, four-year term.

Sauer’s office did not respond to a series of questions from CNN about how the decision is made to intervene and the process that it uses.

But a source familiar