A jury in October acquitted Richard Convertino of accusations that he presented false evidence and concealed evidence when he prosecuted North African immigrants in 2003. The government dismissed an obstruction of justice charge a month later.

Convertino asked a Detroit judge last month to order the government to pay his defense costs.

Convertino told The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press for stories Tuesday that the government continues to try to discredit him, despite his acquittal. He said many of the allegations are false or so old that they are difficult to confirm or deny.

The Justice Department's accusations include that Convertino falsely claimed a high school class presidency as well as college and law school honors. The allegedly padded resumes were used to get positions within the Justice Department and were submitted to the White House in 2001 when he was seeking a judgeship, according to the filing.

"I will fight them until hell freezes over and then on the ice," said Convertino, who is planning a malicious prosecution lawsuit. "This is our government that is conducting themselves in this manner, and it's disgusting that they're able to do that."

The Justice Department argued the allegations are relevant in deciding whether the government should pay Convertino's defense costs because it's important to know the information prosecutors acted on.

A federal judge ruled Monday the matter belongs in Monongalia County Circuit Court. That's where WVU filed the case after Rodriguez resigned to take the head coaching job at Michigan.

WVU had argued because it's an arm of state government, it can only be sued in state court.

U.S. District Court Judge John Bailey agrees. He says the university is not an independent body.

The ruling also says it's clear the outcome of the case will have an impact on state funds because any money paid to or held by the university is considered the state's money.

The justices decided unanimously to overturn two lower court rulings tossing out the legal challenge. The lower courts had sided with grocers, who said such labeling disputes should be resolved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not through lawsuits.

But the Supreme Court ordered the deceptive marketing lawsuit reinstated, ruling that private citizens can file such challenges because of an identical state law requiring labeling.

"Congress appears to have made a conscious choice not to preclude such actions," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote.

The lawsuit was filed by 11 consumers and backed by California Attorney General Jerry Brown. The suit names some of the state's largest grocers, including Albertson's Inc., Safeway Inc., The Kroger Co., Trader Joe's, Costco Wholesale Corp., Whole Foods Market Inc., Bristol Farms Inc. and Ocean Beauty Seafoods Inc.

The consumers allege that farmed salmon are naturally grayer than wild-caught fish. But fish farmers feed the salmon two chemicals that make their flesh redder and nearly identical looking to wild salmon.

The three-judge panel rejected the 66-year-old R&B singer's argument that his sentence was unreasonable due to his age, poor health and lack of proof that the federal prison system can provide him adequate health care.

In its ruling, the appellate court said the trial judge was correct in sentencing and "best balanced the need to sanction Mr. Isley's `pathological' tax evasion against the need to accommodate Mr. Isley's poor health."

Isley was sentenced in 2006 after being convicted of five counts of tax evasion and one count of willful failure to file a tax return.

Prosecutors said Isley avoided paying taxes numerous times over a three-year period and declared bankruptcy after the IRS seized his yacht, cars and other property in 1997.

He was discharged from bankruptcy four years later, but then did not file tax returns for the years 1997 to 2001 and in 2002 did not sign his return and failed to pay all taxes due.

Isley suffered a minor stroke in July 2004, but got married one year later and continuously performed concerts at that time. He is incarcerated at the Terre Haute Federal Corrections Institution in Indiana and his projected release date is in April 2010.

Isley was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and was part of the Isley Brothers, whose hits included "Twist and Shout" and "This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak for You)."

To help people who earn little or nothing - and might be more likely to spend their rebates - Congress said that anyone who had at least $3,000 in income from a job, self-employment, Social Security and/or certain veterans benefits would get a flat rebate of $300 if single or $600 if married filing jointly, even if they don't owe income tax.

If your 2007 federal tax liability is between $300 and $600 (single) or $600 and $1,200 (married), your rebate will be equal to whatever you paid in tax.

Anyone who gets a rebate of any size will get an additional $300 for each child eligible for the child tax credit in 2008. To qualify, the child must be younger than 17 on Dec. 31, 2008.

Higher-income people won't get anything.

The rebates - including the $300 rebate for kids - start to shrink when your adjusted gross income hits $75,000 (single) or $150,000 (married). Adjusted gross income includes income from all sources, but before most deductions and exemptions have been subtracted.

The rebate is reduced by $50 for every $1,000 you earn above the income limit. It disappears at some point which varies depending on your family size.

Singles with more than $87,000 in gross income and couples with more than $174,000 get no rebate if they have no children.

Those with children can earn a bit more before losing their rebate because it's bigger to start out with. A married couple with two kids, for example, get no rebate when their income exceeds $186,000, says Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst with CCH.

Rebates will not be sent to nonresident aliens (you must have a Social Security number to get a rebate), estates, trusts or people who are or could be claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. That means most high school and many college students won't get a rebate even if they earn more than $3,000 or pay taxes.

The Internal Revenue Service will start issuing rebates - via check or possibly direct deposit - in early May.

The rebates represent a 2008 tax cut. But instead of getting the tax cut next year, when you file your 2008 return, you'll get it this year.

The IRS, however, will use your 2007 tax return to determine who gets a rebate and how much.

If it turns out that you would have gotten a bigger tax rebate based on your 2008 tax return, the IRS will refund you the difference. For example, a middle-income family that has a baby born in 2008 should be able to reap an extra $300 when they file their tax return next year, Luscombe says.

On the other hand, if you would have gotten a smaller rebate based on your 2008 return, you won't have to pay back the difference, says Bob Scharin, RIA Senior Tax Analyst from Thomson Tax & Accounting.

Most rebates will be out by the summer, but if you don't file your 2007 taxes until the extended Oct. 15 deadline, you won't get yours until year end, CCH reports.

Unlike the 2001 rebates, which went only to people who paid tax, the 2008 rebates will go to many people who don't file tax returns.

The IRS says it will work with the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs to make sure all eligible individuals know how to get a rebate.

Tax advisers are encouraging people who had more than $3,000 in income from a job or self-employment in 2007 to file a tax return even if they don't owe tax so the IRS knows how to find them.

The IRS has been warning taxpayers not to fall for telephone or e-mail scams that use the rebate as bait. The perpetrators try to trick people into revealing personal information they use to steal their identities. The IRS never sends unsolicited e-mails.

Also be wary of banks and loan companies that offer refund anticipation loans that include the anticipated rebates when a 2007 return is filed. While apparently legal, these loans can be extremely costly.

Built of cherry wood and designed from blueprints of courtrooms in the Matheson and West Jordan courthouses - the new $250,000 courtroom is not in any courthouse, but at the personal-injury law firm of Siegfried & Jensen.

"Jurors expect to see cases presented the way it is on television," said law partner Mitchell Jensen. "Instead of describing an accident, it is replayed for them."

At least one 3rd District Court judge is trying the technology. A LCD projector, screen and switchbox donated by LawMedia Center, which is building Siegfried & Jensen's system, were recently installed in Judge Paul Maughan's courtroom.

Maughan believes the equipment will allow for speedier and more efficient trials, while generating less paperwork, state courts spokeswoman Nancy Volmer said.

Prosecutors used the system earlier this month to display crime scene photos and other information during closing arguments in Floyd Eugene Maestas' capital murder trial.

"Nothing in Utah approaches this right now," said James McConkie, of Parker and McConkie, who recently partnered with Siegfried & Jensen. "It allows us to make a more powerful presentation in court."

"We can do a complete dry run of a trial," added law partner Ned Siegfried.

While jurors deliberate their verdict, attorneys can electronically eavesdrop to learn how they reached their decision. In an alcove at the rear of the mock courtroom, the firm has built what amounts to a small television production studio.

The equipment can be used to remotely depose a witness in another state, allow others to watch video depositions from elsewhere and to video-conference with other attorneys.

Lawyer Bradley Parker said the high-tech video depositions are more effective than paper depositions. The equipment can be used to incorporate video, photos, documents and diagrams into the deposition record.

"You can blow it up, highlight it and draw on it, just like they do during the Super Bowl," he said.

Another example: "If we catch a witness in a lie and sweat starts to form on his forehead, we can zoom in for a close-up," Parker said.

McConkie said the video equipment helped quickly settle the case of a woman who claimed her back was injured. The woman was being deposed when she was shown covert video of herself lifting a heavy set of barbells at a garage sale.

The television production equipment was also used in the case of a 5-year-old boy crippled at birth because of a lack of oxygen.

"We put together a settlement CD showing the baby walking and eating and running, sitting, putting on a shirt, and [the caregivers] settled before litigation began," McConkie said. "They could see what kind of client it was and how it would affect the jury," McConkie said.

Jensen said video helps humanize dead and injured clients. "It's hard to tell a story that's so personal without showing them," Jensen said. "It makes it personal. It's no longer a statement about an injury, it's a personal injury."

In its formal response, Yahoo said its board had concluded Microsoft's unsolicited offer "substantially undervalues" the Sunnyvale-based company.

Yahoo indicated it could be lured to the negotiating table if Microsoft ups the ante, without mentioning the price it has in mind.

"The board of directors is continually evaluating all of its strategic options in the context of the rapidly evolving industry environment and we remain committed to pursuing initiatives that maximize value for all stockholders," Yahoo said in a statement.

Investors appeared confident that Microsoft wants Yahoo badly enough to raise the stakes. Yahoo shares rose 25 cents to $29.45 in Monday's morning trading while Microsoft shares fell 48 cents to $28.08.

Yahoo's stock price had dropped by more than 40 percent in the three months leading to Microsoft's bid, valued at $31 per share when it was announced Feb. 1. The offer was 62 percent above Yahoo's market value at the time.

Many analysts believe Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft will eventually raise its bid to $35 to $40 per share, sweetening the pot by $5 billion to $12 billion in an effort to negotiate an amicable sale.

Microsoft was prepared to pay at least $40 per share for Yahoo a year ago, according to a person familiar with the talks between the two companies a year ago. Yahoo wasn't interested then because it was confident in its own strategy, said the person, who didn't want to be identified because Microsoft's 2007 offer was never publicly disclosed.

But a higher bid now could hurt Microsoft's own stock price, which has been slipping amid concerns that a Yahoo takeover could be more trouble than its worth. Microsoft's market value has plunged by more than $40 billion, or 14 percent, since the bid was made public.

Microsoft representatives didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Monday morning.