The holders of about 4,000 accounts had their constitutional rights violated when a district judge in Dallas froze their Stanford-related assets, according to documents filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The pleading also argues that the judge and a court-appointed receiver don't have jurisdiction over an Antigua-based bank connected to the alleged fraud.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit in February accusing Stanford and his top financial officer of running a "massive Ponzi scheme" that defrauded investors of about $8 billion. Stanford has denied the allegations, and did so again Monday night during a tearful interview aired on ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson."

Attorney Michael Quilling, who represents about 35 account holders, said a favorable ruling on his pleading would result in the court unlocking the 4,000 accounts that the receiver has so far declined to release. He also questioned whether Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver, has jurisdiction in the case, calling Janvey "a king without a country."

"The big issue here is that right now thousands of Americans are having their due process rights trampled under the guise of an order that is based on no jurisdiction," Quilling said. "This is a second victimization. (Account holders) were victimized by the bank and its fraudulent practices and are now being victimized by the court and the receiver."

The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from the state of Georgia over attorney fees for lawyers who sued to force dramatic changes in Georgia's foster care system.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob awarded them $10.5 million in attorney fees, a $4.5 million enhancement on top of a $6 million award. Shoob said he increased the award because of the exceptional results that children's advocates achieved. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn his decision.

The class-action lawsuit against Georgia, settled in 2005, prompted the state to reduce worker case loads, improve investigations into abuse and prevent overcrowding in foster homes. Gov. Sonny Perdue, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, authorized hiring 500 additional child welfare workers.

Shoob said the attorneys deserved the award because their lawsuit had beneficial results despite the state's resistance to reform. The state settled the case after fighting it for nearly three years.

Lawyers for Georgia say appeals courts around the nation have split on whether a judge can give lawyers extra money based on their performance.

The lengthy legal tussle between America’s Cup sailing teams BMW Oracle Racing and Alinghi over who has the right to challenge Alinghi for the next Cup appears to have taken a decisive tack in BMW Oracle's favor.

On Thursday, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that BMW Oracle, the American-based syndicate that represents Golden Gate Yacht Club in San Francisco, should be restored as challenger of record for the oldest major trophy in international sport.

The verdict, a unanimous 6-0 decision, overturned a ruling last year that would have allowed the Spanish-based Club Nautico Español de Vela, or CNEV, to remain Alinghi's primary challenger.

The decision opens the way for an unconventional Cup at some stage in the next year in which BMW Oracle and Alinghi could face each other in a best-of-three regatta in massive, new-age catamarans. But there is also the possibility that Alinghi’s owner, Ernesto Bertarelli, and Larry Ellison, his counterpart at BMW Oracle, could, with the legal situation resolved, resume negotiations and agree on terms for a conventional multi-challenger regatta to be staged in 2010 or 2011.

Reached by e-mail, Bertarelli initially declined to comment. In an interview in December prior to the verdict, he indicated that he was unlikely to pursue further legal action if this appeal — in New York’s highest court — went against his team.

Jane Eagleson, a spokeswoman for BMW Oracle, said, “We’re obviously pleased with the court decision today, and we’re carefully studying the decision and expect to have further comment in the next few days.”

Rapprochement has proved elusive between Bertarelli and Ellison, both of whom sail on their yachts during competition. They were once on friendly terms but have been transformed into bitter rivals off the water by the 21-month dispute over the terms of the next Cup. The court battle has forced other would-be challengers to disband or drastically reduce their payrolls while they waited for clarity.

The order by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Arthur Hiller, issued Monday and made public Tuesday, prohibits them from selling homes or moving money, and marks the first time their assets have been frozen.

"This is an important step," said David Golub, a lawyer representing the town of Fairfield, Connecticut, in a lawsuit against Madoff and the so-called feeder funds run by Tremont Group Holdings, Maxam Capital Management and Fairfield Greenwich Group.

The town's pension funds charged in a lawsuit that the funds "knew -- or willfully refused to know -- that Madoff's investment returns were not actually produced by his purported split-strike conversion strategy."

Separately, a judge in New York denied an appeal by Madoff's brother, Peter, to lift a freeze on his assets in a civil lawsuit. Peter Madoff had reached an agreement with U.S. authorities in December on an asset freeze, according to court papers.

In a unanimous opinion, the high court refused to reverse the conviction of Michael Rivera, who was found guilty of first degree murder in the shooting death of 16-year-old Marcus Lee and sentenced to 85 years in prison.

Rivera's lawyer wanted to use one of his peremptory challenges on a female juror candidate, but a state judge refused to let him do it. The woman, Deloris Gomez, a business office supervisor at Cook County Hospital's outpatient orthopedic clinic, went on to become the jury forewoman.

The Illinois Supreme Court said she should have been dismissed, but that the error was harmless. Rivera's lawyers argued that the seating of an illegal juror should have required an automatic reversal.

"A state trial court's good faith but erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge, we hold, does not require automatic reversal of the defendant's conviction, provided that all persons seated on the jury are qualified and unbiased," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court.

The high court on Thursday voided the convictions of many youth offenders who appeared before former Luzerne (loo-ZURN') County Judge Mark Ciavarella (shiv-uh-REL'-uh) from 2003 to 2008.

Federal prosecutors charged Ciavarella and another judge with taking $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in private lockups.

The judges pleaded guilty to fraud last month and face sentences of more than seven years in prison.

The juveniles whose records were expunged were low-level offenders who appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom without lawyers.

The Montana Supreme Court says a credit-card issuer cannot amend a cardholder agreement to add an arbitration clause, merely by enclosing a "bill stuffer" notice with the cardholder's monthly bill.

The court in a 5-1 ruling said the practice "does not provide sufficient notice to the consumer" about a change that would restrict his or her access to the courts.

The ruling came in a case brought against the Herbergers department stores by a Kalispell woman, Santana Kortum, who is an attorney. It reverses a District Court ruling that granted Herbergers' motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the lawsuit, and sent the case back to the District Court for further proceedings.

"We conclude that making a change in a credit agreement by way of a "bill stuffer" does not provide sufficient notice to the consumer on which acceptance of the unilateral change to a contract can be expressly or implicitly found." Justice James C. Nelson wrote for the court. "Consequently, Herbergers' unilateral attempt to amend its original cardholder agreement to include an arbitration clause was ineffective.

Concurring in the opinion were Justices John Warner, Patricia Cotter, W. William Leaphart and Brian Morris. Chief Justice Mike McGrath did not participate in the ruling.