It was not immediately known who brought Thursday's action, known as an ex-parte motion.

Two attorneys for Spears' father James — who has been named as her conservator — were in court along with Spears' court-appointed attorney and an attorney for the conservatorship. A conservatorship is created when a court determines a person can no longer care for his or her own affairs.

The hearing came a day after Spears was suddenly released from a psychiatric hospital, drawing objections from her parents.

"I'm ready for Wednesday to get here," Clemens said, referring to the committee's public hearing next week, when Clemens, McNamee and other witnesses, including current New York Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, are to testify.

It was the seven-time Cy Young Award winner Clemens' denials of McNamee's allegations in the Mitchell Report about drug use that drew Congress' attention.

"Because the perception out there was so strong originally that he did it and was lying, he's going to extra steps to try and persuade and make people comfortable with the fact that he didn't do it. He's having to take extraordinary measures because the allegations are extraordinary," one of Clemens' lawyers, Rusty Hardin, said outside Tierney's office.

Hardin said Clemens was meeting with individual representatives "to assure them privately the same thing he's saying publicly — that he didn't take steroids, and he didn't take human growth hormone, and he's here to talk to anybody about it who wants to."

Clemens, who gave a deposition Tuesday, was to visit a dozen congressmen Thursday and Friday, including Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican, according to a schedule released by Clemens' camp. Committee chairman Henry Waxman was not listed on the schedule.

In former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell's report on doping in baseball, released in December, McNamee said he injected Clemens 16 times with steroids and human growth hormone in 1998, 2000 and 2001. Clemens has repeatedly denied those accusations, including, he said, under oath Tuesday.

On Wednesday, word emerged that McNamee's representatives turned over gauze pads and syringes they said had Clemens' blood to IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky in early January, a person familiar with the evidence said, speaking on condition of anonymity because McNamee's lawyers did not want to publicly discuss details. The syringes were used to inject Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone, the person said. A second person, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the evidence was from 2000 and 2001.

The documents, which were declassified and released Wednesday by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, detail efforts by Moussaoui's attorneys to send the case back to a lower federal court to find out whether the tapes should have been disclosed and whether they would have influenced his decision to plead guilty.

In a Dec. 18, 2007, letter to the appeals court's chief judge, the Justice Department acknowledged that its lead prosecutor in the case had been informed about the CIA's tapes of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah being interrogated.

The letter said the prosecutor, Robert A. Spencer, may have been told of the tapes' destruction in late February or early March of 2006, just as the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., was beginning its trial on whether Moussaoui would be eligible to face the death penalty.

Spencer, who was one of three prosecutors on the government's team, "does not recall being told this information," U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg wrote in the Dec. 18 letter to 4th U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Karen J. Williams.

Another prosecutor in Rosenberg's office in Virginia's eastern district who was not involved in the case "recalls telling (Spencer) on one occasion," the letter said.

That second, unnamed, prosecutor learned about the videotapes of Zubaydah "in connection with work he performed in a Department of Justice project unrelated to the Moussaoui case," the letter said.

It is unclear what that project was.

Spencer on Wednesday declined comment.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said the newly released documents underlined the need for an outside investigation of the government's handling of the interrogation tapes.

"This latest disclosure, if true, could amount to a kind of prosecutorial misconduct that undermines our efforts in the administration's 'War on Terror' and the international community's confidence in the American system of justice," Conyers said in a statement. "This is yet another reason that the Justice Department cannot be trusted to police itself and therefore, a special prosecutor must be appointed immediately. The attorney general must be prepared to respond to serious questioning on this issue."

A government official familiar with case said that since the taped interrogations that Spencer knew of only dealt with Zubaydah, the government didn't need to disclose them. Zubaydah already had been declared not relevant to the Moussaoui trial, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the case.

Much of the legal correspondence in the Moussaoui case has been classified and under court seal. The documents released Wednesday offer a glimpse into the court's struggle to determine for sure whether the CIA taped its interrogations of terror suspects.

Moussaoui pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiring with al-Qaida to hijack aircraft, among other crimes. In a 2006 sentencing trial, a jury concluded that Moussaoui's actions furthered the Sept. 11, 2001, plot in which terrorists flew hijacked airliners into buildings in New York and Washington. But the jury ultimately decided to spare his life and sentence him to life in prison.

The December letter came on the heels of one dated Oct. 25, in which Rosenberg informed the court that the CIA did, in fact, possess videotaped interrogations of enemy combatants. During Moussaoui's sentencing trial, prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema they did not possess tapes Moussaoui's lawyers were seeking.

The tapes at issue in that letter are not the same ones that were destroyed by the CIA in 2005 and prosecutors assured the judge that they were not related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or the Moussaoui case.

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the CIA's videotapes, which showed interrogations of Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. They were destroyed, in part, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether the tactics used during the interrogations — which are believed to have included waterboarding — were illegal.

In a written response to the December letter, Moussaoui's attorneys asked the appeals judges to send the case back to the lower federal court that "is in the best position to determine what actually happened and its relevance."

"The timing is important here," Moussaoui attorneys Justin S. Antonipillai and Barbara Hartung wrote in their Dec. 26 response. "The fact that any prosecutor in the same office knew about the existence and destruction of these tapes is surely important evidence."

The appeals court recently rejected the attorneys' request to return the case to the lower court.

Beginning in 2003, attorneys for Moussaoui began seeking videotapes of interrogations they believed might help them show he wasn't a part of the 9/11 attacks. Brinkema on Nov. 3, 2005, asked for confirmation of whether the government "has video or audio tapes of these interrogations" and then named specific ones.

Eleven days later, the government denied it had video or audio tapes of those specific interrogations.

Despite the lapse in disclosure, the government maintains that none of the interrogations related directly to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or the Moussaoui case.

Prosecutors also say the issue is moot since a jury failed to impose the death penalty in the case.

Dawn Nelson sued Unity Hospital and Dr. Steven Berestka, claiming the doctor removed "the most erogenous tissue" after the boy was born on Jan. 21, 2000 — without consulting either parent. Nelson and the boy's father, David Nelson, were unhappy with the result.

But the Appeals Court noted in its Tuesday decision that the mother indicated on a prenatal form that the baby should be circumcised.

Attorney Zenas Baer, who is representing the mother and son, said he was disappointed with the court ruling.

He said federal regulations say there has to be a signed informed consent form before any surgery — and he argued that a checked-off box on a form regarding circumcision is beside the point, saying "isn't the mom allowed to change her mind?"

Baer said his client plans to appeal.

Dawn Nelson initially sued the doctor, alleging assault and battery and negligence. That claim was settled separately. The claims against Unity Hospital and its parent company, Allina Health System, went forward.

Nelson claimed the hospital had a duty to verify that the doctor obtained informed consent and she claimed the hospital had been deceptive or misleading in its informed consent policy.

A Hennepin County judge disagreed and dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed the lower court decision.

As for the child, another surgeon "performed a revision for cosmetic purposes" shortly after the initial circumcision, the ruling said.

Mark Whitmore, an Allina attorney, said the company was pleased with the ruling.

According to Baer's Web site, he "contributes substantial amounts of time to ending the barbaric practice of routine infant male circumcision worldwide, insuring genital integrity for all citizens of the world."

The Free Press sued the city in Wayne County Circuit Court to obtain the confidential agreements, which city lawyers insisted did not exist.

Colombo rejected city arguments that some of the documents are private and exempt from disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, saying, "Nothing could be further from the truth."

The judge gave the city until 8:30 a.m. Friday to decide whether to appeal his decision. He urged the city to release the documents immediately.

Sharon McPhail, general counsel of the mayor's office, released a statement saying the office disagreed with Colombo's ruling and would immediately appeal.

"The documents in question were never introduced into evidence during the lawsuit or trial, were never part of the evidence the jury considered during the trial and many of the documents have never been in the City's possession," the statement said.

Also Tuesday, the Detroit City Council authorized the city auditor general to investigate the finances and operation of the mayor's office and law department.

The moves came two weeks after the Free Press reported it had obtained nearly 14,000 text messages sent between Kilpatrick and Christine Beatty on her city-issued pager in 2002 and 2003.

The messages showed that Kilpatrick and Beatty lied under oath at the whistle-blower trial in August when they denied that they had been involved romantically. The messages also showed that they tried to fire Deputy Police Chief Gary Brown.

The Free Press report set off a chain of events, including demands for Kilpatrick and Beatty to resign, a perjury investigation by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy and a public apology from the mayor. Beatty turned in her resignation last week; it takes effect Friday.

The Free Press first requested the secret agreements in October, shortly after the mayor announced that he had settled lawsuits filed by Brown and former mayoral bodyguards Harold Nelthrope and Walter Harris, who said they were fired or forced to resign after raising questions about the conduct of the mayor's security staff.

The officers said they were forced out to prevent them from learning about the mayor's relationship with Beatty.

Colombo said all of the documents will be made public unless the city wins an appeal.

The decision is a setback for the Bush administration, which was displeased by the court's three-judge ruling in July and had urged all 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review it. The administration said the decision jeopardized national security.

The ruling held that, when Guantanamo Bay detainees bring a court challenge to their status as "enemy combatants," judges must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military chooses.

After criminal trials, appeals courts are limited in what evidence they can review. But hearings at Guantanamo Bay are not trials. Detainees are not allowed to have lawyers and the Pentagon decides what evidence to present. And unlike in criminal trials, the government is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent.

"For this court to ignore that reality would be to proceed as though the Congress envisioned judicial review as a mere charade," Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote Friday.

If the military reviewers designate a prisoner an enemy combatant, the prisoner can challenge that decision before the appeals court in Washington. The court was divided 5-5 on whether to reconsider its earlier decision. A majority of judges must vote to reconsider a ruling as a full court.

The Supreme Court is watching the case as it considers a landmark case challenging whether the military tribunal system is unconstitutional. With the high court waiting, it would not be in the public's interest to reconsider the case and risk delaying a Supreme Court decision, Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph issued a stern retort.

"We think that it is more important to decide the case correctly," Randolph wrote on behalf of the dissenting judges, "and that a correct decision would be of more assistance to the High Court."

It is unusual for judges to issue written opinions when denying such requests. The decision to issue a multiple written opinions underscores both how important and contentious the issue is.

"We are disappointed with today's decision," Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said. "All of the judges recognized the importance of the case and the court was evenly divided. We are reviewing the decision and considering all of our options."

The Supreme Court's stay of execution followed its decision in September to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the cocktail of chemicals used in lethal injections. The court began hearing arguments on this on January 7.

Local courts and state governments across the United States have put executions on hold while they await the Supreme Court decision, which is expected before the end of its term in July.

The review centers on the three-stage cocktail of drugs used in the injections -- the first chemical puts the prisoner to sleep, the second paralyzes the muscles and the third stops the heart.

If all goes to plan, the inmate quickly falls unconscious and dies within minutes. But if the first chemical is not administered properly, the two others become extremely painful, as shown by several botched executions.

Lawyers arguing against lethal injection say it violates the eighth amendment of the US constitution, which outlaws "cruel and unusual" punishment.

In December, New Jersey became the first US state in 40 years to abolish the death penalty. But opinion polls suggest that two-thirds of Americans continue to favor capital punishment, and more than 3,200 inmates remain on death row across the country.