Carmel faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine when he is sentenced Nov. 27, although the prosecutor said he could get a lighter sentence in exchange for his guilty plea under federal sentencing guidelines.

Carmel, 32, of Gilman, also is charged in federal court in New York state with trying to sell rifle sights he allegedly stole from the military. That complaint says that when he served as a supply officer on the minesweeper USS Shrike, he obtained hundreds of laser sights, machine gun parts and night vision goggles although the vessel didn't require the equipment.

Carmel, a lieutenant, was relieved of his supply duties for misappropriating government property and misusing his authority. He left the Navy in 2005.

The complaint in Wisconsin said Carmel became the target of an investigation into theft and sale of stolen military supplies, including weapons.

Federal investigators discovered a cache of weapons on the 40 acres Carmel shares with his parents in Chippewa County, including machine guns, a rocket launcher, artillery shells and dozens of grenades.

Carmel's attorney, Chris Kelly, said nothing in court besides agreeing with the judge. He didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

No hearings have been scheduled on the charges in New York.

Raingzieb Ahmed, 32, charged with three counts, spoke only to confirm his name and age during a five-minute hearing at London's City of Westminster Magistrates Court.

A 17-year-old from Dewsbury, England, who faces two counts, also spoke only to confirm his identity during a separate appearance.

Ahmed was arrested at Heathrow Airport in London on Sept. 7 after returning from Pakistan, where he had been held on suspicion of militancy, Greater Manchester police said.

He was charged with directing activities of a terrorist organization, possession documents useful to terrorists and possession of a rucksack containing traces of explosives allegedly for terrorist purposes.

District Judge Timothy Workman ordered Ahmed held pending an appearance in Central Criminal Court on Oct. 5.

The 17-year-old, who cannot be identified, was arrested Sept. 11. Workman adjourned the case for one week when the suspect is to return to court.

He is accused of possessing quantities of potassium nitrate and calcium chloride, which he allegedly intended to use for terrorism.

The second charge involves the possession of a document, the "anarchist's Cookbook," which would be useful in preparing for a terrorist attack.

Anthony Gomez, 24, admitted in court that he watched another man shoot the dog, then encouraged the man to behead the animal, a 4-year-old Australian shepherd mix named Chevy.

Three weeks after the dog disappeared in February, its severed head was sent in a package to its owner, 17-year-old Crystal Brown. Brown's family said that she had rejected Gomez's advances and that they believed he had the dog killed out of spite.

Gomez pleaded guilty to terroristic threats and is to be sentenced in November to 21 months.

After the story became known, Brown received letters of condolence, pictures of pets, dog toys and treats, gift cards, and checks from as far away as Australia.

AT&T said it would appeal the case, which was tried in the Beaumont division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case centered on two patents related to activating calling cards.

"We are disappointed by this result which is contrary to the law and evidence in this case. We will seek to have it corrected by the trial court or on appeal," AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said in an e-mailed statement.

Verizon confirmed the settlement but declined to comment on details.

The financial award against AT&T could increase to $468 million, or three times the original verdict, McKool Smith P.C., the law firm representing Dallas-based TGIP, said in a statement. The law firm cited the jury's finding of willful infringement against AT&T.

McKool Smith said other defendants besides Verizon had reached settlements before the trial but it did not give details.

The lawsuit was filed against AT&T Corp. in March 2006 before the company merged with SBC to form AT&T Inc.

Lerach's fall represents a stunning development for one of the nation's most prominent – and wealthiest – plaintiff lawyers. He specialized in class-action lawsuits against corporate America.

Lerach oversaw litigation that recovered more than $7 billion in settlements arising from the Enron fraud. He filed tobacco lawsuits against R.J. Reynolds over its Joe Camel advertising campaign and antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and the Nasdaq market. His personal income in 1998 was more than $13 million, according to evidence presented in a 1999 civil lawsuit.

The federal investigation that began seven years ago was focused on misconduct at Lerach's previous law firm, now known as Milberg Weiss.

Lerach's single conspiracy count resulted from information that a former Milberg Weiss law partner, David Bershad, provided to prosecutors, according to one source familiar with the terms of Lerach's plea.

The conspiracy count alleges that Lerach knew that a Milberg Weiss client, former Los Angeles eye surgeon Steven Cooperman, lied when he swore under oath that he was not being paid to serve as a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Cooperman has been at the center of news accounts concerning Milberg Weiss since he went to jail in 2001 for art insurance fraud.

The New York law firm was indicted in July by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles, based on allegations that the firm made more than $11 million in unlawful payments to clients.

Prosecutors allege that Milberg Weiss orchestrated a scheme that recruited clients who bought shares or owned stock in companies the firm had targeted for lawsuits. Maintaining a stable of ready plaintiffs enabled Lerach and his team to be the first to file their lawsuits, which was a crucial advantage under the law at that time. Filing first enabled them to win control of the class-action cases and collect bigger slices of settlements and court victories. The clients were then rewarded with the improper payments, which were kept secret from the court and others.

The Milberg Weiss firm has denied any wrongdoing, as has Steven Schulman, a former partner charged in the case. Both are scheduled for trial next year.

Bershad, who oversaw the firm's finances, pleaded guilty in July to conspiracy, admitting that he and others agreed to hide payments the firm had arranged with certain plaintiffs in a variety of class-action lawsuits. As part of his plea, Bershad agreed to forfeit $7.75 million.

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, declined to comment. Lerach's defense attorney, John Keker, did not return a phone call to his office after business hours last night.

Terms of the plea agreement, which required months of negotiations, specify that Lerach is not required to cooperate with the government's continuing investigation.

The agreement also confirms that the Coughlin Stoia law firm will face no criminal charges or liability in the matter, a provision that became a sticking point in talks between the two sides.

Another issue was Lerach's request for a binding deal so that if the court rejects the proposed plea agreement for some reason, either side can withdraw from the agreement.

Prosecutors began scrutinizing Milberg Weiss and Lerach in 2000, examining thousands of lawsuits that spanned a 20-year period.

Ironically, Lerach began his career as a corporate lawyer in Pittsburgh.

He switched sides, though, when he moved to San Diego in 1975 to set up a one-room outpost for Milberg Weiss. As a plaintiff lawyer, he put everything at risk by taking cases on contingency.

In the ensuing decades, Lerach established San Diego as Milberg Weiss' West Coast headquarters, and supervised the firm's operations as co-chair, with Mel Weiss, of the law firm's management committee.

Lerach's ferocious tactics and penchant for invective, however, made him a lightning rod for America's captains of industry – especially among the Silicon Valley technology companies that were his favorite targets.

He often compared Milberg Weiss to a private enforcement arm of the Securities and Exchange Commission – except that it was unburdened by politics and put its own capital at risk.

In 1995, Congress passed legislation to curb many of the abusive practices in shareholder lawsuits that Lerach helped pioneer. The bill was officially known as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but in some congressional circles, it was better known as the "Get Lerach Act."

One of the dissenting judges said the legislature should either be required to adopt civil unions or marriage. The other two said that the case should be sent back to the lower court for a trial to see if government has a good enough reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage.

The majority opinion said that while the court agrees that marriage is a fundamental right, it says there is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex.

The court also said that although there has been a history of unfair discrimination against gay people, as a group gay people are not politically powerless.

"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

"The court refused to recognize that lesbian and gay couples form committed relationships and loving families just like heterosexual couples," said Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project who argued the case before the court.

The suit originally was filed two years ago by the ACLU on behalf of the nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner passed away and who would like to be able to marry one day.

In January Baltimore Judge M. Brooke Murdock said that the 1973 law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman "cannot withstand constitutional challenge."

The ruling was stayed to allow the state to appeal.

In oral arguments last December before the Court of Appeals the state argued that the matter of same-sex marriage should be decided by the legislature not the courts.

"The General Assembly is the proper forum to weigh these issues," said Robert Zarnoch, counsel to the General Assembly.

Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project disagreed, telling the court that the issue was the state constitution and basic fairness. 

"Lesbians and gay couples, who form loving and committed relationships, and who raise children, need and deserve the critical protections that come with marriage," he said.

"The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the most fundamental guarantees of equality and liberty for all."

Equality Maryland said it was surprised by the high court ruling, given judgments in Massachusetts and New Jersey where courts have ruled same-sex couples must be accorded the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

"We will be pushing for full, legal equality in the Maryland General Assembly," Equality Maryland executive director Dan Furmansky told the Washington Post after the ruling was released.

"This is a social justice struggle. Eventually, Maryland will have civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. It's inevitable."

The issue of same-sex marriage is also before the Supreme Court in California. Oral arguments are expected to be heard late this year or early in 2008.

Two of Missouri’s biggest law firms - Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin and Husch & Eppenberger - are engaged in preliminary merger talks, both firms confirmed Monday.

The combination of the two would create a firm with 630 attorneys, ranking it second in size among Missouri-based law firms after Bryan Cave, which has about 800 attorneys worldwide.

Husch, which is based in St. Louis and has a 40-attorney office in Kansas City, has about 300 attorneys. It tallied $124 million in revenues last year, according to The American Lawyer, a legal publication.

Blackwell, which is based in Kansas City, has about 330 attorneys and grossed $116.5 million last year. About half the firm’s attorneys are based in Kansas City.

"Merger discussions are in their early stages, but our intentions are serious and the prospects for this strategic combination are exciting," said Dave Fenley, Blackwell chairman. "As with any merger talks, nothing is final until the deal is signed."

Blackwell is best known for its corporate, litigation, transactional, real estate, and labor and employment practices. Husch is best known for its litigation, commercial finance, environmental and bankruptcy practices.

Both firms have offices in multiple cities; the merged firms would have 16 locations in the United States and London.

Husch held preliminary merger discussions last year with Stinson Morrison & Hecker, another large Kansas City firm, but the talks fell through.

Its talks with Blackwell come little more than a year after eight estate planning attorneys left Husch for Lathrop & Gage, leaving a gaping hole in Husch’s estate planning practice in Kansas City.

Not long before that, four estate planning attorneys at Husch jumped ship for Blackwell, one of several instances in recent years of attorneys migrating from one firm to the other.

Although the cross-fertilization of attorneys may make a merger of the two firms easier to pull off, Fenley said that was not the impetus behind the proposed combination. Rather, he said, a consulting firm used by both firms - Hildebrandt International - recommended the marriage.

"They thought it was a very good fit," he said. "A merger would allow us to become more diverse and more sophisticated and would create greater depth. That’s what clients are looking for these days."