Still, Disney officials said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that this development and others go through required environmental studies, which they claim were skipped in this proposal. City staffers have said previous reviews were sufficient.

"Our concern is, this could quickly unravel the Anaheim Resort area and the golden egg that it is for Anaheim," said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland Resort spokesman.

Mayor Curt Pringle, who was against the residential plan, said he would leave it to the lawyers to consider the merits of the case.

But he said the lawsuit was a dramatic step on the part of Disney, the city's largest employer that is the center of the resort where much of the local taxes are generated.

"This is a very significant action. This is something that we should not take lightly," Pringle said.

Some council members said they were taken aback by the lawsuit, while others saw it coming.

"It's absolutely a surprise,'' said Councilman Harry Sidhu, who voted against the zoning change. "At the same time, they have a right to defend their position and we'll see what their demands are. I do not like to see any kind of lawsuit. I'm the type of person that wants a settlement, and I would like to give them a chance to present their case."

The lawsuit stems from unusual actions taken by both the council and the Planning Commission.

In August, four of five council members asked the staff for the zoning change to pave the way for SunCal to propose a 1,500-home development, including 200 affordable units.

Affordable-housing advocates praised the plan as a way to build low-cost homes near resort jobs. But business leaders said the proposal went against the long-term vision to put hotels and tourist venues on the 26.7-acre plot.

Last month, the commission went against the council's direction and rejected the residential zoning, agreeing with Disney that homes are incompatible with the resort area.

At the same time, the commission backed the city's recommendation to approve environmental documents, which outline how much development the surrounding roads, sewers and other infrastructure can handle. City staff relied on previous studies, instead of conducting new ones.

Because the council deadlocked on the plan, the commission's vote stands as the final decision.

Disney disagrees with the commission's endorsement of the environmental studies and now is suing to force the city to conduct them.

Frank Elfend, a consultant for SunCal, said he believes the lawsuit is unfounded. SunCal is requesting a council re-hearing on the zoning change.

"We think that this is another intimidation action on Disney's part," Elfend said.

The private law firm hired to represent the state Office of Legislative Services amid a federal grand jury investigation has submitted a $55,000 bill for its first few weeks on the job.

The law firm, Greenberg, Dauber, Epstein & Tucker, submitted an invoice Feb. 5 that totaled $55,032.25 for three lawyers' 189.7 billable hours, according to a redacted bill released by the OLS to Gannett New Jersey.

Though the firm did not send the OLS a written contract until Jan. 18, billing began on Dec. 30. By the time it sent a letter to OLS stipulating its rate -- $275 per hour, or $300 per hour in court -- the firm's lawyers had racked up $17,600 in fees.

Because the matter involves a federal grand jury looking at whether lawmakers personally profited from state budget decisions, little of the proceeding has been public.

Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-West Orange, has said the legal fight for which the outside counsel was hired only involves former Senate budget committee chairman Wayne Bryant, D-Lawnside, invoking an attorney-client privilege with the OLS, but subsequent subpoenas issued to partisan legislative offices and key lawmakers have indicated a broader scope.

OLS Executive Director Albert Porroni would neither confirm nor deny that the inquiry involves only Bryant.

The legal invoice renewed Republican calls for a meeting of the Legislative Services Commission, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers that oversees the OLS. Republicans have been calling for a commission meeting since it was revealed the OLS hired Edward J. Dauber without briefing lawmakers.

The Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Tuesday putting a stop to an upcoming sex abuse trial and becoming the largest US diocese to file for bankruptcy thus far. The diocese had been engaged in settlement talks with plaintiffs' attorneys in the lawsuits over clergy abuse, however, after those talks failed to come to any resolution, the diocese filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. As Bishop Robert Brom explained, the diocese "decided against litigating our cases because of the length of time the process could take and, more importantly, because early trial judgments in favor of some victims could so deplete diocesan and insurance resources that there would be nothing left for other victims." David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said that the filing is not due to concerns for the victims, but rather "its for their own self-preservation."

The diocese told parishioners last week that it was considering declaring bankruptcy in light of the more than 140 pending lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests. In January 2007, the Catholic Diocese of Spokane agreed to settle molestation claims against priests for $48 million as part of its Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The Archdiocese of Portland filed for Chapter 11 in 2004, and the dioceses of Tuscon, Spokane, and Davenport soon followed suit in the wake of hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits against clergy. Last month, the Portland archdiocese filed a new bankruptcy plan including a $75 million settlement of the sexual abuse claims.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a complaint Tuesday against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking the release of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order that authorized government surveillance of transmissions coming into or going outside of the country where one party was suspected of association with a terrorist organization.

The EFF filed their complaint under Section 552(a)(4)(B) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which grants the federal court "jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." The EFF complaint alleges that the DOJ denied the EFF's January 23, 2007 FOIA request seeking:

copies of all Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court...orders referenced by the Attorney General in his letter to Sens. Leahy and Specter, and all FISC rules and guidelines associated with such orders and/or referenced by Mr. Snow in the January 17 press briefing.

Gonzales revealed the existence of the FISC order in January through a letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Gonzales announced that Bush administration will submit all domestic surveillance requests to the FISC for review and approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While maintaining the legality of the NSA domestic surveillance program, Gonzales said in the letter that the President will not reauthorize the program when its current authorization expires, and will instead submit all surveillance requests through the FISC.

Timothy Hammond, a Benton roofing contractor, has been named in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan Monday alleging he scammed consumers out of more than $12,000.

Filed in Franklin County Circuit Court, the lawsuit states that Hammond was running a roofing business through three Benton companies, Centamark, Kwik Seal and Allied Roofing. The complaint claims Hammond solicited roof repair contracts and collected payments but failed to begin the repair work, to complete it and in other instances to perform the work in "a competent and professional manner."

"We will continue to work to protect Illinois consumers from contractors who fail to do a complete and professional job," Madigan said. "Promising to perform a service to get the consumer to sign a contract and then failing to deliver on the promises is a violation of the consumer protection laws and will be prosecuted."

The lawsuit states that the Consumer Fraud Bureau investigated Hammond and his businesses based on five consumer complaints. The lawsuit details one of numerous complaints alleging Hammond entered into a contract for $3,800 to roof a Franklin County residence. Hammond then received a down payment of $1,900 but failed to return to even start the job.

The person who entered into the contract sent a certified letter to Hammond demanding the down payment back, but the Benton contractor refused to return the money or to do the work, the suit alleges.

The lawsuit charges Hammond with consumer fraud and deceptive practices.

The lawsuit also alleges Hammond failed to provide homeowners with a verbal and written notice of their legal rights to cancel contracts, failed to obtain and maintain a roofing license and failed to provide consumers with copies of the "Home Repair: Know your Consumer Rights" pamphlet required under state law for contracts more than $500.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims Hammond failed to carry adequate insurance and also failed to register the names of Centamark, Kwik Seal and Allied Roofing with the county clerks where the businesses operated.

The lawsuit asks the court to ban Hammond from engaging in home repair and to make him pay restitution. The lawsuit also seeks a civil penalty of $50,000 and additional penalties of $50,000 for each violation that was committed with the intent to defraud.

Following the example of suspected Iraqi terrorist and US citizen Shawqi Omar, Ramadan brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the federal court. Basing his claim on the fact that he is presently in US custody, Ramadan claimed that he would be subject to harm if turned over to Iraqi officials. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that regardless of whether Ramadan was in US custody, a US court lacks jurisdiction over an alien who is detained overseas and convicted by a foreign court. Friedman stated from the bench that granting the petition would constitute an improper collateral review of another court's decision.

A California state appeals court ruled Monday that the state's stem cell research program "suffers from no constitutional or other legal infirmity," leading the way for approximately $3 billion in grant money to be awarded to researchers. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First District upheld last year's lower court decision upholding the constitutionality of the program, operated by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The lower court determined that the stem cell program was being administered with sufficient state control and did not violate ballot initiative or conflicts of interest rules.

The research program, known as Proposition 71, was approved in a 2004 state referendum by a 59 percent margin. In its ruling, the appeals court noted the delay in research that the litigation had caused:

The objective of the proposition is to find, "as speedily as possible," therapies for the treatment and cure of major diseases and injuries, an aim the legitimacy of which no one disputes. The very pendency of this litigation, however, has interfered with implementation for more than two years.
The lawsuit against the program was brought by the California Family Bioethics Council and two anti-tax organizations - the People's Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said they would consider an appeal after reviewing the court's opinion, admitting that the California Supreme Court refuses to hear many appeals.