Flatsigned Press Inc., a book publisher based in Nashville, Tenn., says Imus insulted the company last year in ads it paid for to promote a book by Ford on the Warren Commission's investigation into the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

On his "Imus in the Morning" show, the talker told WFAN listeners the publishers "have been waiting for (Ford) to croak so they can unload these (books)," the lawsuit claims.

Besides calling the ad spots "cheesy," Imus said of Ford's death, "Now that he's flatLINED, you go to flatSIGNED.com," the lawsuit filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court says.

Marc Held, Flatsigned's lawyer, said Thursday that Ford approved the book and signed the copies Flatsigned was selling. Imus was told to read the script "word for word" and not insult the sponsor, "but he kept doing it," Held said.

Flatsigned's sales dropped $40,000 a day for several months after Imus' "libelous and disparaging statements," court papers say. The papers also say stores refused to stock the book because of his comments.

Flatsigned said it paid for two 30-second ad scripts a day for three days — Jan. 29, 30 and 31, 2007.

Imus, 67, read the first script as written, court papers say, but in later readings of the script, he made "unequivocally unacceptable" remarks about the publisher, even after officials at CBS, WFAN's parent, asked him to stop.

Karen Mateo, spokeswoman for CBS, said she had no comment on the lawsuit.

Imus, fired from WFAN last year after making a racially charged remark about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, now has a syndicated show on New York's WABC, which is owned by Citadel Broadcasting Corp.

A spokeswoman for Imus did not immediately return a call for comment, and his lawyer, Martin Garbus, was said to be traveling.

At a point where Imus was supposed to say Ford hand-signed the books before he died, Imus asked, "How else would he sign them, with his foot?" the lawsuit says.

During another ad spot, court papers say, Imus said, "Now that ol' President Ford has flatLINED, buy your piece of American history at FlatSIGNED.com."

Court papers say Imus acknowledged, "They asked me not to say that, but ..." He then agreed with someone in the studio that the play on words was too tempting to pass up, the lawsuit says.

Court papers say Flatsigned rejected an offer by CBS and WFAN in February 2007 to provide 15 "make good" commercial spots on other programs.

The lawsuit asks for $4 million in compensatory damages for breach of contract, libel and malice, and for another $59,000 spent for a newspaper ad that ran after the commercials on Imus's show.

When Marco Carrillo, a naturalized American and a high school valedictorian, went to meet with his college counselor, her major worry about his future had little to do with his SAT scores or essay or extracurricular activities.

It had to do with his citizenship.

"The very first question she asked me was whether I was a legal resident here," said Mr. Carrillo, 20, now an electrical engineering student at Arizona State University in Tempe. "And I said, ‘Yeah, I am.' And she said, ‘Oh good, that makes things easier.' "

Such questions have become commonplace in Arizona, where voters passed a 2006 referendum, Proposition 300, that forbids college students who cannot prove they are legal residents from receiving state financial assistance.

One of several recent immigration statutes passed by Arizona voters and legislators frustrated by federal inaction, the law also prohibits in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Administrators at several campuses fear that the provision has priced some out of their classes, particularly at the state's popular community colleges.

"When we look at the fall semester that just ended, we saw significant drops in enrollment in English acquisition classes," said Steven R. Helfgot, vice chancellor for student and community affairs at Maricopa Community Colleges. "And we think that some of that at least is due to Prop 300."

A report to the Legislature in December found that about 1,700 students had been denied in-state tuition at the Maricopa colleges because they were not able to prove their legal status, though it was unclear how many had dropped out.

Officials at the University of Arizona in Tucson said that some of the 200 to 300 dropouts from last fall were also illegal immigrants. Pima Community College, estimated that as many as 1,000 students may have been affected by the law.

More than enrollment declines, however, what worries some educators here is that nonlegal residents — some of whom have lived in the United States since infancy and attended American high schools — will be afraid to pursue any form of higher education.

"The most frightening thing about the policy in place isn't necessarily its measurable effect, it's the immeasurable effect," said Paul R. Kohn, the vice provost for enrollment management and dean of admission at the University of Arizona.

"It's likely that there are hundreds of high school senior or college-age students whose plans for college have been compromised," Dr. Kohn said. "And it's likely there are thousands in K-12 who will no longer make those plans because the cost of university is now out of reach or they fear deportation if they attempt to attend school."

The law does not forbid nonlegal residents from attending college or require colleges to report them to the authorities, something the colleges have worked hard to convey. Still, supporters said the law would save the state millions of dollars and provide a powerful disincentive to prospective border-jumpers.

"Arizona has been overwhelmed with illegal immigration and all the negative things that follow — crime, increased public service costs, especially education, and depression of our wages — and the federal government seems barely capable of doing much," said State Representative John Kavanagh, a Republican from Fountain Hills, east of Phoenix. "Denying the in-state tuition, besides being fair to residents, also deters illegal immigrants from coming here."

Arizona lawmakers have been increasingly active on the issue of immigration, moving National Guard troops to the border and passing a law that threatens businesses with the loss of licenses if they hire illegal immigrants.

The moves have disappointed many college-age Mexican-Americans.

"I see it as a very cruel law," said Teresa Guerra, 26, a fourth-generation Mexican-American who is studying history at Phoenix College, a part of the Maricopa system. "A lot of people I've grown up with have gone through that whole thing. They're raised in the American educational system, and now they have no future. These are people who have basically lived in America their whole lives, know nothing else, and now their shot at the American dream is gone."

For students who cannot prove legal residency, the difference in cost can be stark. At Phoenix College, for example, a part of the Maricopa system, in-state tuition runs $65 a credit hour. For out-of-state students taking a full course load, the cost is $280.

The difference can be even more jarring at the state's four-year institutions. Maria Elena Coronado, a student counselor at Arizona State, said out-of-state students could expect to pay $4,000 to $5,000 more a semester than those who proved legal residency.

"I had a girl come in yesterday, who doesn't have papers, but did really well and carried good grades into college," Ms. Coronado said. "But now she could only afford to take one class."

Representative Kavanagh said the law's intent was not to rob young, assimilated Mexicans of the opportunity to go to college, but merely to try to tame a problem Washington had not solved.

"I would be more than happy to take care of those kids who came here at a young age — they are as American as my kids and would be totally lost if they were deported," he said, challenging Democrats in Arizona to draft a bill that "doesn't have amnesty attached to it."

Mr. Carrillo, the Arizona State student, said he knew of several nonlegal residents considering returning to Mexico for college.

"It's expensive going to school in Mexico over there because there's no such thing as financial aid," he said. "You pretty much have to scrape it. But at least you're not worried that you're going to get deported."

In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of "John Doe" in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the cyclist claims USADA broke its own rules and damaged him by outing him as a doping suspect. His identity was sealed in the suit to prevent his name circulating more widely.

Two people with direct knowledge of the case told the AP on Friday that Leogrande was the unnamed cyclist, and that sworn affidavits about Leogrande had been provided to USADA, which was using them in building a case against the 30-year-old.

The cyclist claims USADA planned to test his backup urine sample even though the original 'A' sample test came back negative, and the lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent USADA from ever testing the 'B' sample.

USADA general counsel Bill Bock would not confirm the name, citing agency rules that forbid him from discussing specific cases.

A message left by AP on Leogrande's cell phone was returned from that cell phone. The angry caller said: "Lose my phone number. Don't call me again. ... I don't know how you got my phone number, but lose it," then hung up.

Plaintiff attorney Maurice Suh did not immediately return messages left at his office by AP.

The samples in question were taken during the International Cycling Classic last July, the two people familiar with the case said. Leogrande won three events, finished second at three more and finished second overall at the event, also known as Superweek.

Leogrande is a member of the Rock Racing team, which is owned by Michael Ball, the CEO of jeans-maker Rock & Republic. His bio on the team Web site said using the "same signature aggressive approach, he now plans to change the face of the racing world."

He most notably has hired Tyler Hamilton, who served a two-year suspension for doping, and had been in conversations with Floyd Landis, who is fighting doping charges of his own, to work in some management capacity for the team.

But Landis, who's serving a two-year suspension while his appeal is pending at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, is prohibited from working for a cycling team.

Landis said Ball was "someone who is going to speak his mind and not always be politically correct about it."

"But he's not out there to break the rules," Landis said. "He sees it the same way I do. If a guy is going to ride, he wants them to follow the rules."

Landis said he didn't know Leogrande and wasn't familiar with the case. The plaintiff's attorneys in this case, Suh and Howard Jacobs, are the same team that represent Landis.

On Thursday, when asked about the lawsuit, Bock called it "utterly frivolous and morally bankrupt."

The lawsuit calls for a jury trial and seeks to recoup damages the plaintiff claims were incurred when the anti-doping agency revealed the case to race organizers and the UCLA testing lab.

The suit alleges USADA notified the plaintiff last Nov. 15 that the 'A' sample came back negative. Despite that negative finding, the agency directed the UCLA testing lab to test the 'B' sample, "thereby violating the applicable rules and regulations governing anti-doping control and testing."

Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Lilly Ann Sanchez, said the allegations are false and motivated by money.

The girl, now 17 and identified only as Jane Doe, claims Epstein invited her to his Palm Beach mansion in 2005 to perform a massage for $300. She claims he demanded she remove her clothes, then sexually assaulted her, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in West Palm Beach.

"Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and the assault sent her life into a downward spiral," the lawsuit states.

The girl, her father and stepmother are seeking more than $50 million.

"It is our belief that this is completely financially motivated," Sanchez said. She said the girl told Epstein she was 18, and regardless, he did nothing inappropriate with her.

The teen is also at the center of a criminal case against Epstein in Florida, said her lawyer, Jeffrey Herman.

Epstein, 55, is charged with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Prosecutors declined to charge Epstein with soliciting a minor for sex, as Palm Beach police recommended. The state attorney's office declined to comment about the criminal case.

The teen's father pleaded guilty in 2001 to three federal fraud counts accusing him of arranging fraudulent loans as a mortgage broker in a scheme to collect commissions from sales. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. The Associated Press is not naming the father to protect the girl's identity.

The father, who was also at the news conference, declined to comment on his own criminal case.

"Quite frankly, we're very, very angry," he said, adding that Epstein destroyed his "daughter's innocence."

Epstein, a money manager, also was sued last year in New York by a woman who claims he had sex with her at his Manhattan mansion in 2000 when she was 16.

"I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Epstein doesn't see what he's done to these young people and just look to reach a reasonable settlement with them," said that woman's attorney, William J. Unroch.

Gerald Lefcourt, Epstein's New York attorney, also denied the allegations in the New York case. He also said in court papers that Unroch and his client, who is actually a man living as a female, filed a similar lawsuit in a separate case.

Attorneys representing the Rev. Francis DeLuca argued unsuccessfully that the U.S. District Court did not have jurisdiction in the case.

The attorneys cited language in the state law eliminating the civil statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases, saying it designated Superior Court for the cases. However, Judge Sue Robinson ruled that the law did not prohibit the federal court from hearing the case.

Robert Quill alleges DeLuca sexually abused him more than 300 times from 1968 to 1975. According to court documents, DeLuca has denied the allegations.

Earlier this year in Syracuse, N.Y., DeLuca pleaded guilty to charges he molested a teenage family member over several years. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail.

The company, Ragingwire Inc., argued that it rightfully fired Ross because all marijuana use is illegal under federal law, which does not recognize the medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

The justices upheld that argument in a 5-2 decision.

"No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2005 that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from prosecution. The Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies have been actively shutting down major medical marijuana dispensaries throughout California over the last two years and charging their operators with felony distribution charges.

Ragingwire said it fired Ross because it feared it could be the target of a federal raid, among other reasons.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. had joined Ragingwire's case, arguing that companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the-court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.

Ross had argued that medical marijuana users should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana in 1996.

The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which represents Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it began tracking the issue in 2005.

Safe Access attorney Joe Elford said the group will now focus on urging the Legislature to pass a law protecting workers who use medical marijuana.

"We remain confident that there will be a day when medical marijuana patients are not discriminated against in the workplace," he said.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat who represents part of San Francisco, said he will introduce legislation addressing those concerns in the next few weeks.

The ruling "strikes a serious blow to patients' rights," he said.

Eleven states have adopted medical-marijuana laws similar to California's: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is done.