He now faces as many as 10 years in prison when he is sentenced in November.

Uhl, who is being held at a jail in Lynchburg, was arrested May 21 after Campbell County authorities who searched the trunk of his car found five bombs that state police agents called "homemade napalm." Campbell authorities have said they do not believe Uhl intended to disrupt Falwell's funeral services or harm the Falwell family.

At a bond hearing in May, a federal agent said Uhl had other plans for violence, including a plot with a friend to disrupt a prom at his former high school in northern Virginia with pepper spray.

Caplan Law Firm principal attorney Allan Caplan has announced that the firm is currently offering a new BWI practice specialty, defending Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) cases during the Summer months. Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) is the act of operating under the influence any motorized craft that carries a person over water, usually motor boats and jet skis, or even things like water skis.

A principal of Caplan Law Firm, P.A., Allan Caplan spent six years prosecuting major felonies and white collar crimes as an Assistant Hennepin County Attorney During his 32-year career. In 1983, Mr. Caplan formed Caplan Law Firm, P.A., one of the largest criminal defense firms in the Midwest, with six lawyers representing clients in criminal law matters, both locally and nationally. A Minnesota DUI attorney, Mr. Caplan has achieved numerous acquittals and successful results for his clients in every type of case ranging from DWI and DUI to first-degree murder.

The Caplan Law Firm, P.A., recognized as a top criminal defense and Minnesota DUI law firm, has successfully represented numerous clients throughout Minnesota, the Minneapolis St. Paul area, Wisconsin, and the Federal Courts in a wide range of criminal matters.

Board of Trade members have long held special options-exchange rights, but the options exchange says the CME-CBOT merger wiped out those special rights.

The judge said Friday that Board of Trade members have a good case that the options exchange's new rule barring them from the trading floor does unfair damage to their economic interests. But he refused to issue the restraining order, saying money will be an adequate remedy if the rule is ultimately struck down after trial.

The Delaware judge also stayed action in a lawsuit filed by the Board of Trade against the options exchange last year, in which Board of Trade members claimed they are being cut out of a fair share of the option exchange's demutualization.

Board of Trade members argue that the contribution they made in creating the CBOE in 1973 entitles them to a share of the equity being distributed in the options exchange's demutualization. The options exchange has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to endorse its view that Board of Trade members aren't entitled to anything in that process.

Judge Noble said he wants to see what the SEC says about the dispute before court action moves forward.

But lawyers for nearly 160 men and women who have sued the Roman Catholic diocese for covering up sexual abuse by clergy members and others say the bishop is merely trying to duck the public specter of jury trials.

Meanwhile, weeks of closed mediation talks with a federal magistrate have failed to produce a settlement of the abuse claims, nearly all of which were filed in 2003.

A key question now is: What is likely to spur a settlement?

Veteran legal observers say to look no further than last month's record, $660 million agreement between Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and attorneys for 508 plaintiffs to see the effect a looming trial has on settlement talks. The Los Angeles diocese settled on the eve of the first trial there.

The matter of how to value the abuse lawsuits is set to be debated before federal bankruptcy Judge Louise DeCarl Adler on Aug. 23. She will consider a motion by the victims' attorneys to send dozens of the lawsuits back to state court for trial dates.

The diocese wants to take the matter out of Adler's hands, however. Brom's attorneys, in a motion filed two weeks ago, are asking a U.S. District judge to estimate the value of the abuse lawsuits in a way that does not involve testimony in open court.

In a response filed yesterday, attorneys representing the sexual-abuse victims called that idea "forum shopping."

They said the diocese's action is about "fleeing a state court system that has resulted in average settlements well above the amount it wants to pay."

The diocese has offered $95 million, or about $600,000 per victim on average, to settle the abuse lawsuits and emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Diocese attorneys say that offer reflects Brom's goal of trying to fairly compensate the victims while protecting the church's mission of educating Catholic children and ministering to the spiritual needs of parishioners.

In court documents filed yesterday, plaintiffs' attorneys note that the Orange County diocese settled more than 90 abuse suits in 2004 for an average of $1.15 million apiece, and that the Los Angeles cases settled for $1.3 million on average.

In March, on the first day of the bankruptcy case, Adler made it clear that she would "not be deciding the merits of the abuse cases."

She said the value of the abuse claims will be resolved in one of three ways: They will be settled before a mediator, arbitrator or settlement judge; they may be estimated by the U.S. District Court; or they will be tried.

Closed mediation talks continue before Magistrate Judge Leo Papas. An intense week of mediation is scheduled beginning Aug. 13, in advance of Adler's ruling on whether to release the cases for state court trials.

The diocese's request to have the case-valuation issue decided by a U.S. District judge – whose power supersedes that of bankruptcy court judges – is expected to be considered soon. No hearing date has been set. One reason diocese attorneys give for wanting the matter placed before a U.S. District judge is that they hope to again argue that the 2002 California law allowing lawsuits regarding decades-old abuse incidents is unconstitutional.

The diocese has raised that issue twice before in state court and once in federal court. It lost each time.

A man with long experience mediating and deciding such complex and high-stakes issues is retired U.S. District Judge Lawrence Irving.

"I've handled a lot of mass tort (personal-injury) cases, and one thing is typical of all of them: They never go to trial," Irving said.

"What will force the diocese to settle these cases is to set them for trial immediately. And remember, both the bankruptcy judge and a U.S. District judge have the power to remand these cases for trial."

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.

"The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive" and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged."

The raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home.

Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. The Justice Department said it built that case without using the disputed documents from the raid.

The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case.

"Today's opinion underscores the fact that the Department of Justice is required to follow the law, and that it is bound to abide by the Constitution," defense attorney Robert Trout, said, promising more legal challenges to "overreaching by the government in this case."

The Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the decision. Officials have said they took extraordinary steps, including using an FBI "filter team" not involved in the case to review the congressional documents. Government attorneys said the Constitution was not intended to shield lawmakers from prosecution for political corruption.

The court was not convinced. It said the Constitution insists that lawmakers must be free from any intrusion into their congressional duties. Such intrusion, even by a filter team, "may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity," the court held.

The case has cut across political party lines. Former House Speakers Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and Thomas Foley, a Democrat, filed legal documents opposing the raid, along with former House Minority Leader Bob Michel, a Republican.

Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid.

Following his indictment, Jefferson's supporters accused the Bush administration of targeting black Democrats to shift attention from the legal troubles of Republican congressmen.

"We are confident that as this case moves forward, and when all of the facts are known, we will prevail again and clear Congressman Jefferson's name," Trout said Friday.

Despite the looming investigation, Jefferson was re-elected to a ninth term in 2006. His win complicated things for Democratic leaders who promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and placed him instead on the Small Business Committee. He resigned that committee assignment after being indicted.

The case was considered by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers.

"This event was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written," Judge Carolyn King wrote for a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result, the panel found those who filed the suit "are not entitled to recover under their policies," she said.

More than a dozen insurance companies, including Allstate and Travelers, were defendants. Becnel said he planned to appeal. Xavier University said it would seek a rehearing, insisting the matter is ultimately one that should be decided by Louisiana courts.

John Houghtaling, an attorney representing 400 property and business owners in claims against insurers, agreed. He's not involved in this case but is set to argue one with similar issues before a state appeals court next month. He ultimately expects the Louisiana Supreme Court to weigh in on the exclusion issue.

"People from New Orleans need to realize this is not final," he said. "This is halftime."

King said the federal appeals judges used their "best judgment" in trying to determine how the state's high court would settle the issue if it had the case the panel decided Thursday.

The decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who in November sided with policyholders arguing that language excluding water damage from some of their insurance policies was ambiguous.

Duval said the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God -- such as excessive rainfall -- and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina's landfall.

But the appeals panel concluded that "even if the plaintiffs can prove that the levees were negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that the breaches were due to this negligence, the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs' policies unambiguously preclude their recovery."

"Regardless of what caused the failure of the flood-control structures that were put in place to prevent such a catastrophe, their failure resulted in a widespread flood that damaged the plaintiffs' property," and policies clearly excluded water damage caused by floods, King wrote.

This was a consolidated case, including about 40 named plaintiffs, including Xavier University, and more than a dozen insurance companies. It is just one of the cases pending in federal court over Katrina damage. The Army Corps of Engineers faces thousands of claims for damage resulting after the levees breached; King noted in her opinion that dozens more cases, some consolidated and involving property owners suing insurers, are pending in federal court in New Orleans.

Rossmiller, who is not involved in Katrina-related litigation, said the appeals panel's ruling wasn't surprising.

"The 5th Circuit got it right," he said. "This was an easy one."

Representatives of Illinois-based Allstate and Minnesota-based Travelers said their companies were pleased with the court's findings.

Insurance companies typically restrict property coverage to damage caused by wind, fire and other hazards. Congress launched the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968 to help homeowners living in flood-prone areas get flood insurance to complement private policies. Private agents sell the federal policies, which are often subsidized by taxpayers because premiums don't factor in the real risks of damage.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Bush was trying to exploit the threat from al-Qaida to push the bill. Feingold said the measure was an "egregious power grab that includes broad new powers that have nothing to do with bringing FISA up to date."

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without FISA court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could. It also said the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

The national intelligence director, in a letter Wednesday to the House intelligence committee, stressed the need to be able to collect intelligence about foreign terrorists overseas. Mike McConnell said intelligence agencies should be able to do that without requirements imposed by an "out of date" law.

Reyes said Saturday that the committee is intently focused on the issue.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, contends the White House is asking for more power to conduct warrantless domestic and international surveillance.

The ACLU said the legislation backed by the administration would give immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for the telecommunication companies that participate in the NSA program. The ACLU urged lawmakers to find out the full extent of current intelligence gathering under FISA before making changes.

The House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said Democrats are delaying necessary changes.

"Rather than learning the lessons of September 11 — that we need to break down the bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis — Democrats have stonewalled Republican attempts to modernize FISA and close the terrorist loophole," he said Saturday.