Even drivers suspected of buying a small amount of marijuana, a low-level crime punishable by a $100 fine, faced seizures in many of the cities with the ordinances.

The 4-3 ruling said only state law can mete out punishment for drug and prostitution offenses and without authorization from the Legislature, cities can't pass seizure ordinances that are harsher than state and federal laws.

Many urban city councils said they enacted the seizure laws as a way to combat drug sales and prostitution and clean up some of their most blighted neighborhoods.

The ruling didn't address newer city laws that allow police to seize cars allegedly participating in illegal street races and "sideshows."

The ruling, which caught Mulroney's lawyers off guard, came Thursday in a default judgment by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The motion being argued today in a Toronto courtroom says the judgment was made in the face of a pending motion that challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

In the motion, Mulroney's lawyers argue their client successfully met the deadline to respond to a lawsuit filed by Schreiber.

The motion argues Mulroney can't be found in default without an express court order delivered with proper notice to his lawyers.

Schreiber sued the former prime minister to recoup $300,000 in cash the businessman says he handed to Mulroney over three meetings in hotel rooms in New York and Montreal in 1993 and 1994.

The court, in a Thursday ruling, suggested that by not bringing the soldiers to justice, Russian prosecutors had implicitly accepted the massacre in Novye Aldi, when security forces rampaged through the town, setting fire to houses and killing at least 50 civilians.

``The astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities in this case can only be qualified as acquiescence in the events,'' the court said in its decision.

Moscow has denied that its security forces are guilty of atrocities in the southern Muslim republic of Chechnya, where two wars have been fought to re-establish Russian control following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

But relatives of Chechen victims have recently been seeking reparations from the Strasbourg-based human rights court - and winning.

Russia said last week that it wanted to restrict the flow of appeals to the court by allowing its citizens to file human rights cases against the state in Russian courts - something they cannot do now.

Chechens have opposed this move, saying they fear the government wants to deprive them of their only hope for justice.

The court has issued more than 10 verdicts against Russia in the past few months in cases concerning the Chechen wars. Some 200 are still pending.

Aquila admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, Butkus said. The company will record the $10.5 million charge in its second or third quarter, he said.

The proposed settlement was filed Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The suit was filed in late September 2004 in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City. A former employee sued the Kansas City-based company (NYSE: ILA) and its board of directors for promoting the company's stock as a "conservative" investment for participants in the company's retirement plan.

The class included more than 7,000 current and former employees who put Aquila stock into the company's retirement plan from 1999 to May 5, 2004.

A hearing on the settlement' s final approval has been scheduled on Nov. 13 before U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple.

Some Tahoe residents have blamed the agency for the fire, saying the agency's regulations aimed at preserving the clarity of the lake made it difficult to clear pine needles, trim brush and cut trees around properties to create defensible space.

In the subdivision damaged in the Angora fire, an assessment found that 19 percent to 34 percent of the homes had created defensible space.

Larry Parker, the personal injury lawyer cited in the television ads, did not return a telephone call by the Associated Press to his Long Beach office Tuesday seeking comment.

The Reno Gazette-Journal reported that the firm sent the newspaper an e-mail Monday that said the firm "has represented over 100,000 injury victims during the past 30 years and recovered over $750,000,000 for its clients."

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency officials said they've seen the ads and the fliers but haven't received any notification of legal action. The agency says it relaxed tree-cutting policies in recent years and can't be blamed for the blaze.

"We've tried to convey clearly that most defensible-space work is possible under existing rules," said Julie Regan, agency spokeswoman.

"If you look at the work that's been done in Incline Village, it's been done under the same rules as the South Shore," she told the newspaper.

"It's unfortunate that some businesses and attorneys are trying to take advantage of this community by using scare tactics."

Agency regulations say: "Leave the 'duff' layer of pine needles in your yard -- do not rake them all up. The 'duff' layer is the dark area at the ground level where the pine needles are decomposing. This matter does not burn easily."

Other residents said they didn't want agency inspectors on their property because they fear they will be cited for violations of the agency's erosion-control measures.

That fear creates a "paralysis" among homeowners who want to make changes on their property, residents and fire experts said last month.

Agency officials say the regulations weren't responsible for the blaze but are open to changes.

"We have been open to amending policies and ordinances in an effort to better address fire safety at Lake Tahoe," John Singlaub, the agency's executive director, said. "Following the Angora fire, a robust community debate is in order to help prevent such a catastrophic event from occurring in the future."

They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor. The White House has claimed executive privilege to block Congress from receiving documents or testimony by current and former presidential aides.

``We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year,'' said Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues," he said.

Gonzales is at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, but the call for a perjury probe involved alleged conflicts between testimony he gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. The issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

As for the firing of the prosecutors, e-mails released by the Justice Department show Gonzales' aides conferred with Rove on the matter.

Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide. The deadline for him and Rove to comply was set as Aug. 2.

"For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail," the Vermont lawmaker said. "They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents."

The call for a perjury investigation marked yet another complication for Gonzales, whose fitness to serve has been bluntly criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters aboard Air Force One during the day that he "might" raise the issue with the president, who has steadfastly stood by his longtime friend.

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters, "I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," based on conversations with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

In a separate letter Thursday to Gonzales, Leahy said he would give the attorney general eight days to correct, clarify or otherwise change his testimony "so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth."

In their letter to Clement, the four senators wrote that Gonzales' testimony last year that there had been no internal dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program conflicted with testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey and with Gonzales' own statements this week before the Judiciary Committee.

They also said Gonzales falsely told the panel that he had not talked about the firings with other Justice Department officials. His former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, told the House Judiciary Committee under a grant of immunity that she had an "uncomfortable" conversation with Gonzales in which he outlined his recollection of what happened and asked her for her reaction.

"The attorney general should be held to the highest ethical standards," the senators wrote.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the four lawmakers to sign the letter, was sharply critical of Gonzales. "There's no wiggle room." Schumer said.
It's not misleading. Those are deceiving. Those are lying."

Clement would decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor because Gonzales and outgoing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty have recused themselves from the investigation that involves them. The Justice Department's No. 3 official, Associate Attorney General William Mercer, is serving only in an acting capacity and therefore does not have the authority to do so.

At issue is what was discussed at a March 10, 2004, congressional briefing. A letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said the briefing concerned the administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration.

But Gonzales, at Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving prior court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe. He said the meeting prompted him to go to the bedside of ailing then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to recertify the surveillance program, but he denied pressuring Ashcroft to do so. Ashcroft, recovering from gall bladder surgery, refused.

White House press secretary Tony Snow defended Gonzales on Thursday but would not talk about the subject of the 2004 briefing.

"Unfortunately we get into areas that you cannot discuss openly," Snow said. "It's a very complex issue. But the attorney general was speaking consistently. The president supports him. I think at some point this is going to be something where members are going to have to go behind closed doors and have a fuller discussion of the issues. But I can't go any further than that."

In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Court of Appeals decisions that said the residents had the legal standing to sue the company over how its water withdrawals might affect the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake.

But it disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the residents also had the legal standing to sue over a nearby lake -- Osprey Lake Impoundment -- and three wetlands, saying residents didn't prove they used those areas.

Justice Marilyn Kelly criticized the majority's decision, writing in her dissent that "it extinguishes a valid cause of action for no reason other than its belief that the cause of action granted by the Legislature is too broad."

A Nestle spokeswoman said the court simply was being consistent with an earlier ruling that limited the law's scope.

But David Holtz, director of Clean Water Action Michigan, said the court's ruling makes it even more important to pass legislation protecting Michigan's waters. A package of bills was introduced this week in the state House to strengthen a permit system for water withdrawals.