An attorney for a property owner where Mattel once operated a factory in Beaverton, Ore., argued that the courts should step in and correct mistaken decisions by arbitrators.

Arbitration is often regarded by the business community as a cost-saving, timesaving substitute for lawsuits. But the risk is that the losing side cannot seek relief in the courts except in limited circumstances.

In the fight between Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, the two sides agreed in advance that a federal court could review an arbitrator's decision for possible errors of law. A federal judge overturned the arbitrator's decision, making the property owner the winner in the Mattel case.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested expanded judicial review is appropriate in this instance, pointing to the fact that the two sides negotiated a contract with court review as one of its provisions.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia suggested Mattel might be seeking more latitude than the law allows for parties to negotiate expanded judicial review in arbitration cases.

The American Arbitration Association says a cornerstone principle of federal law is that arbitrators' awards are final and binding.

If parties to a dispute are allowed to engage in expanded judicial review, arbitration will become a prelude to lawsuits instead of a substitute, the association said in court papers.

Many industries have an interest in the case, including the wireless communications industry which has filed papers in support of an expanded role for the courts.

The wireless industry says that in the absence of court review, parties may decide they are unwilling to "bet the company" on arbitration. The result would be a decline in the number of disputes sent to arbitration and an added workload for already-overburdened courts.

In the case before the justices, Hall Street Associates wants Mattel to pay for cleanup at a contaminated factory site that Mattel leased from Hall Street.

The toy company and the property owner agreed to submit the case to arbitration, signing an agreement allowing either side to seek court review of the decision.

The property that Mattel leased from Hall Street Associates contains high levels of the industrial solvent TCE used to degrease metal parts.

Mattel did not contaminate the grounds with the hazardous chemical and an arbitrator initially ruled the toy manufacturer did not have to pay for the cleanup.

The case then began a six-year odyssey through the federal court system.

A judge said the arbitrator's decision "defies logic." The arbitrator responded by reversing himself and awarding Hall Street $584,000.

This prompted another trip to the courts and ultimately an order by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reinstate the original arbitration award in favor of Mattel.

The collection includes a black doctor's bag used by Nichopolous containing prescription bottles bearing Presley's name, as well as jewelry, guns, and a laryngeal scope used to examine Presley's throat.

According to the lawsuit, Nichopolous agreed last year to sell it for $1 million to Long and his business partners, Robert Gallagher and Betty Franklin of Nevada. Long put up the money, and Gallagher and Franklin, who claimed to have a "half interest" in the collection, agreed to assign all their rights to a company Long controlled.

Long alleged in his lawsuit that Gallagher and Franklin refused to surrender access to the memorabilia and would not provide the paperwork needed to obtain insurance. A judge entered a default judgment against Gallagher and Franklin in July after they repeatedly failed to appear for court hearings and ignored court orders.

The judgment held Gallagher and Franklin in contempt and gave Long authority to dissolve the partnership and sell the collection. The Supreme Court turned down Gallagher's appeal Tuesday.

David Finger, an attorney for Long, said his client is determined to make Gallagher give up the collection.

"If he does not turn it over, we will seek to have him incarcerated," Finger said.

Michael Matuska, an attorney for Gallagher and Franklin, did not immediately return a telephone message Wednesday.

Chandler William Cardwell, 33, entered his plea Wednesday. In exchange, prosecutors agreed to drop another threat charge and a forgery charge, as well as a special allegation.

Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 10.

Cardwell was arrested in September after authorities executed search warrants at The Press-Enterprise where he worked in the classified advertising department.

Investigators said Cardwell placed an ad for a "Big Blowout, Going Out of Business" yard sale with proceeds to benefit the "Rod Pacheco memorial fund." It listed the district attorney's home address and phone number.

The ad appeared to be a response to Pacheco's announcement that he was seeking an injunction to restrict members of a gang from gathering and to force them to adhere to a curfew.

Cardwell's brother-in-law is a member of the gang, authorities said. Deputy Attorney General Michael Murphy said Cardwell's ties to the gang remain unclear, but "he clearly associates with them."

Cardwell's attorney, Richard Carnero, refuted that claim, saying his client is not a gang member. The ad was not placed "in connection with any gang," he said.

Rob Portman, the former congressman and Bush administration official, is going back to his roots by joining the Cincinnati office of the law firm Squire, Sanders and Dempsey to practice international trade law.

But the Terrace Park Republican is by no means giving up on politics – the law firm has told him he is free to continue traveling Ohio, giving speeches and laying the groundwork for a possible 2010 run for Ohio governor or the U.S. Senate, should George Voinovich decide to retire.

The firm announced the hiring today in the following press release:

Rob Portman, who recently left the President’s cabinet as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), will join global law firm Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. as part of the firm’s transactional and international trade practice. Prior to OMB, he served as United States Trade Representative (USTR), and for 12 years as US Congressman from Ohio’s Second Congressional District. Before his election to Congress, Portman practiced international and business law as a partner in a Cincinnati law firm. Portman will be based in Squire Sanders Cincinnati office, but will also maintain a presence in other offices, including the firm’s Washington DC office.

This new position at Squire Sanders will allow Portman to live in his hometown of Cincinnati and to stay involved with his community while working on national and international issues. Squire Sanders has a thriving Cincinnati office and, with 30 offices in 14 countries, an exceptional national and international platform.

“Rob’s extraordinary background in public service and law makes him an outstanding addition to our team,” said Mark J. Ruehlmann, managing partner of Squire Sanders’ Cincinnati office.

Portman is widely regarded as one of the finest and most thoughtful policymakers in the nation. His track record for success is largely attributed to his ability to work in a bipartisan manner to achieve consensus on a wide variety of important issues. He has been an effective champion for fiscal responsibility and has successfully legislated on issues ranging from environmental conservation and drug prevention to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reform and expanding retirement security.

“Squire Sanders provides me with the unique opportunity to join a prestigious global law firm with 30 offices worldwide while living and working in Cincinnati,” said Portman. “I am looking forward to being involved in helping multinational clients both here and abroad while maintaining the ability to be involved in national public policy issues and community projects,” said Portman.

Mr. Ryan, 73, told reporters that he faced prison with a clear conscience.

“I have said since the beginning of this 10-year ordeal that I am innocent,” he said. “And I intend to prove that.”

Mr. Ryan, who in 40 years in public office became one of the most powerful Republicans in the Midwest, was convicted last year of a long list of corruption charges stemming from his tenure as secretary of state and governor of Illinois, including using public money for campaign work and exchanging state business for money and gifts, among them an island vacation.

Outside Illinois, he was better known for his moratorium on the death penalty and commuting more than 160 death sentences to life in prison just before leaving office after one term, in 2003. To some, Mr. Ryan’s prison term should be cautionary in a state where making deals and giving favors have long been viewed as politics as usual. He is the third former Illinois governor convicted of wrongdoing.

“I would like to believe that this will have a chilling effect on corruption by public officials, but I’m not optimistic,” said Mike Lawrence, who directs the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

New accusations of corruption continue to swirl around officials in the state. Federal investigations have started in connection with officials in Springfield, the capital, as well as Chicago City Hall.

Former Gov. James R. Thompson, a member of Mr. Ryan’s legal team, said he would appeal the case to the Supreme Court next year. A federal appeals court upheld the conviction in August.

Before dawn on Wednesday, Mr. Ryan left his home in Kankakee, 50 miles south of here, his face lighted by the news camera flashes. They later filmed him entering a pancake house in Chicago. Arriving at the prison in Oxford, Wis., Mr. Ryan entered through a back door.

The prison has housed other Illinois politicians, including Chicago aldermen, a Cook County Circuit Court clerk and former Representative Dan Rostenkowski.

Mr. Thompson suggested that Mr. Ryan would work a prison job, as required of all healthy inmates. Prison officials say possible jobs include serving food, mopping floors, landscaping and cleaning toilets. Prison officials said he was allowed to take in his wedding ring and an extra pair of eyeglasses.

For some, a Senate committee's investigation into six well-known evangelical ministries is long overdue, a needed check on preachers living lavish lifestyles built with their donors' generosity.

But even among those who welcome the scrutiny, there was concern Wednesday over government intrusion into religion, more red tape in the name of transparency and undue burdens on preachers and churches who play strictly by the rules.

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, faxed letters Monday to a half-dozen evangelical mega-ministries requesting information about compensation, board oversight and perks — from luxury oceanside homes to flights on private jets to opulent spending on office furniture.

The organizations are not legally required to respond. Some have released statements pledging to cooperate, others have hedged and all have emphasized their commitment to following applicable tax laws.

The IRS requires that pastors' compensation be "reasonable," a figure set by collecting comparable salaries and weighing factors such as church size and a pastor's value to the congregation. IRS rules prevent pastors and other insiders from excessive personal gain through their tax-exempt work.

Marvin Olasky, editor of World, an influential conservative Christian magazine, credited Grassley for racheting up the pressure on ministries he believes are far too secretive about how donations are spent.

"These organizations should be pressured to disclose information," Olasky said. "If glasnost worked in the Soviet Union, it can work in relation to these ministries."

Olasky, however, cautioned that "hard cases make bad law." Echoing others, Olasky said governmental action should be a last resort and that the Christian community and media needs to press organizations to be more open.

The six ministries in the inquiry share Pentecostal theology, a strong television presence and a "prosperity gospel" message emphasizing material rewards for the faithful. They are:

_ Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church and Paula White Ministries of Tampa, Fla.

_ Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas;

_ David and Joyce Meyer of Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo.;

_ Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries of Newark, Texas;

_ Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Bishop Eddie Long Ministries of Lithonia, Ga.;

_ Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International and Creflo Dollar Ministries of College Park, Ga.

These kinds of huge, non-denominational operations are like smaller churches in that they aren't required to publicly disclose their finances.

Scott Thumma, a megachurch expert at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, said they require even greater scrutiny because they lack denominational oversight and have a penchant for unchecked lavish spending.

"If this attention makes these ministries more accountable to donors, it's probably a positive step forward," Thumma said. "At the same time, it does pose challenges about what is the role of government in how a church spends its money and who is accountable. These are probably legitimate concerns by those pastors watching from outside."

Some pastors, Thumma said, might be hesitant to speak out because "they are looking at that slippery slope and don't want to be seen as advocating for the government getting involved in the roles of church."

Dollar released a statement saying questions raised by Grassley's inquiry "could affect the privacy of every community church in America."

Others question whether the halls of Congress are the appropriate setting for the debate.

"I do wonder why a Senate committee would be doing this when the IRS is perfectly capable of enforcing its own rules — and does so frequently," said James Bopp, a nonprofit and tax lawyer who represents several large evangelical organizations but none of those under investigation.

Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at the evangelical media ministry Focus on the Family, said he was disappointed that Grassley thinks an investigation is necessary. Minnery called existing tax rules "vigorous."

In an interview Wednesday, Grassley said his committee has jurisdiction over nonprofits and oversight over the IRS. He said it's unclear whether the IRS is doing enough to police Christian nonprofits or whether existing guidelines go far enough — questions that are part of the inquiry.

"We're going to let these ministries speak for themselves," he said. "Hopefully, it comes back everything's OK, but the allegations we've heard about raise questions."

Grassley also said the inquiry will not delve into doctrinal issues, and that he understands church-state separation concerns. At the same time, he said religious nonprofit groups should be expected to follow rules governing nonprofits just as secular groups are.

"I'm hoping these organizations clean up their own act if there's something wrong," Grassley said.

An IRS spokeswoman declined comment on the Grassley investigation, which could lead in several directions: public hearings, more ministries being drawn in, and potential penalties ranging from back taxes to loss of tax-exempt status.

The evangelical nonprofit world already polices itself through the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which requires members to annually submit audited financial statements and answer other transparency questions. But membership is voluntary, and none of the groups under investigation belong.

IRS audits and inquiries into nonprofits, meanwhile, are confidential. Even if a Christian ministry is punished, donors don't learn about it unless the organization under scrutiny makes it public.

"I see this as a kind of a tug of war of interests," said Rodney Pitzer, managing director of research with MinistryWatch.org, which grades Christian groups on financial accountability.

"On one side you have a ton of good ministries out there who want to be unshackled from red tape and government bureaucracy. In that midst unfortunately are wolves in sheeps' clothing."