Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

ATLANTA - Genarlow Wilson's joy was short-lived. One minute, a judge ordered him released from prison, saying the young man's 10-year sentence for consensual sex between teens was a "grave miscarriage of justice." Ninety minutes later, Georgia's attorney general said Wilson wasn't going anywhere — the state had appealed.

"Yesterday, they did not consent to a bond," attorney B.J. Bernstein said Tuesday on CNN. "We are hopeful to hurry up and get in front of a judge — one, to get him out pending an appeal, but even more importantly, to get this madness over with."

Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

No one is predicting that a symbolic resolution expressing no confidence in Gonzales will survive even the test vote Monday. Most Republicans are likely to vote no, dismissing the whole exercise as a ploy to embarrass President Bush.

"I'm not going to comment on the kind of job" Gonzales has done, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition." "The vote is whether we should take a vote to express a lack of confidence by the Senate. That's wrong."

At the same time, not many of the Senate's 100 members have been supportive of Gonzales after the attorney general told a Senate committee dozens of times that he could not recall key details about the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

White House spokesman Tony Snow brushed off the impending vote.

"There's an attempt to sort of pull this thing like a piece of taffy and looking if there's any political advantage in it. There's not," Snow said on "Fox News Sunday."

Democrats say it's only right for senators to go on record, since five Republicans have called outright for Gonzales' dismissal and many more of the president's party have said in public comments that they have lost confidence in him.

Three years earlier, he had shot his grandparents, Joe and Joy Pittman, with a pump-action shotgun as they slept, then set fire to their home in Chester County.

His attorneys argued unsuccessfully at trial that he was involuntarily intoxicated by the antidepressant Zoloft and didn't know right from wrong.

Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of Zoloft, has said the drug "didn't cause his problems, nor did the medication drive him to commit murder."

Zoloft is the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, with 32.7 million prescriptions written in 2003. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration ordered Zoloft and other antidepressants to carry "black box" warnings — the government's strongest warning short of a ban — about an increased risk of suicidal behavior in children.

Christopher Pittman, now 6-foot-2, has attracted attention worldwide. He turned 18 in April and is in an adult prison, where supporters visit him regularly.

The case generated outrage that Pittman was held so long before his trial. In October, dozens of supporters and relatives gathered in Columbia as defense attorney Andy Vickery argued before the state Supreme Court that his client's confession was influenced by Zoloft and his youth.

A law firm believes a conflict of interest may cost the school district money.

Two law firms represent the school district in trying to recover millions of dollars lost through fraud and abuse over several years. One, Saul Ewing LLP, a Princeton law firm, believes the other firm, Schenck, Price, Smith & King LLP of Morristown, has a conflict because it represents one of the parties the district might sue.

 
From 1998 to 2003, several contractors allegedly defrauded the district by padding bills, charging for incomplete work, receiving double payments and using other tactics.

Three former school district employees have so far been prosecuted for their roles in the case and the investigation is ongoing. Schenck Price has filed five lawsuits on behalf of the district since 2004 and recovered about $1.5 million thus far, said Sidney Sayovitz, an attorney for the firm.

But Schenck Price also represents Epic Construction Management, Sayovitz confirmed. John Pribish, a Saul Ewing lawyer, sent a letter obtained by the Herald News to the district on Sept. 14, 2006, expressing his concerns.

Pribish described Epic Construction as the construction manager during the time when the contractors sued by Schenck Price conducted their work. The Saul Ewing law firm was retained by the district to pursue litigation against Epic.

Now Pribish is saying that Schenck Price's representation of either the school district or Epic Construction compromises the law firm's ability to "maintain its duty of loyalty and confidentiality to both clients where the clients' interests are adverse."

Michael Glascoe, schools superintendent, was unavailable for comment Friday. Officials from the state Education Department would not comment on the matter.

Pribish said the matter is privileged between the attorney and his client, the school district, and would not comment.

In his September letter to Glascoe, Saul Ewing attorney Pribish asked to meet with school officials and Board of Education members to discuss the matter further.

No one confirmed whether a meeting has been set or ever took place.

Sayovitz, the Schenck Price lawyer, believes that his firm is not jeopardizing the district's ability to recoup money.

"Everyone understood from the beginning that we could not be involved with Epic. This was all very openly discussed," Sayovitz said Thursday. "Saul Ewing is free to sue Epic. That's why they were retained."

Sayovitz said the district informed his law firm to go ahead with its litigation against everybody but Epic. There is no record of any lawsuit being filed in Superior Court in Passaic County against Epic.

Mike Azzara, the district's former assistant superintendent for operations in 2002-2005, when both law firms were retained, said Schenck Price notified the district that they could not represent Paterson in anything related to Epic Construction. Azzara is the chief operations officer/treasurer in the Tredyffrin/Easttown school district in Pennsylvania.

"So I called around to find out who I could hire for a potential fraud investigation," of Epic, Azzara said Thursday, adding that Saul Ewing was recommended to him. "They knew I was hiring them because there was a conflict with our regular solicitor."

Saul Ewing lawyer Pribish wrote that Epic Construction may use the fact that it was not originally named in any lawsuits as a basis to argue that any further suit should be disallowed. The contractors currently being sued could also say that Epic is really culpable, and so the contractors themselves could not be held responsible.

Sayovitz said his firm has acted professionally and legally in all matters involving the school district.

"If they had filed suit against Epic," Sayovitz said of Saul Ewing, "and said they were intertwined with the other suits, then we would've done what we are required under the rules of professional conduct. We would've walked away."

Duval allowed a lawsuit against The Allstate Corp., The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. and other insurers to proceed, but said the issue of "flood exclusion" could be appealed by the companies.

A hearing on the appeal was held Wednesday at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel heard arguments from lawyers for policyholders and several insurance companies. Rulings from the appeals court often take months but Judge Carolyn King, one of the three judges, said a decision would come as quickly as possible.

"This case is not just going to take in the queue. It's going to the head of the list," she said.

Insurers say their homeowner policies do not cover damage from any type of flooding, including water from the levees that broke in the aftermath of the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.

"The generally prevailing meaning of the word flood includes what happened during and after Hurricane Katrina in this city," Richard Doren, lawyer for Lexington Insurance Co. argued Wednesday.

The insurance industry stands to lose an estimated $1 billion ($740 million) in Louisiana if policyholders successfully challenge companies' refusal to cover damage from levee breaches, said Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute in New York.

In court papers, a lawyer for policyholders with consolidated cases against insurers said Duval properly concluded that the definition of "flood" in policies is limited to "naturally occurring events."

But plaintiffs' attorney John Ellison accuses insurers of purposely not defining the term 'flood' and deliberately drafting vague policy language "to frustrate the reasonable expectations of Louisiana homeowner policyholders from whom they collected premiums for years."

"It's difficult to think of a more important or significant issue that needs to be resolved with respect to Louisiana law," Ellison said Wednesday.

Lexington Insurance Co. attorneys argue that punishing insurers for failing to define common words like "flood" could force them to engage in "defensive over-specification, which would inevitably lead to longer policies that are less comprehensible to most policyholders."

Duval agreed last year to dismiss State Farm Insurance Cos. from the litigation. He ruled that State Farm's policies included language that clearly excluded all flood damage, regardless of the cause.

The new protections, added in the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act, went into effect in early December 2006. The provisions were meant to protect shoppers from identity thieves, who have been known to dig through trash dumps to steal receipts in search of credit-card information.

Very shortly after the law took effect, class-action lawyers pounced, charging that dozens of retailers had violated the FCRA by continuing to print receipts without redacting all or some of the data . Citing what they called questionable wording in the statute, attorneys for the retailers claimed their clients were operating under the position that compliance with the law meant redacting either the credit card number or the expiration date, but not necessarily both. (Judge for yourself - the statute reads: "No person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt... .")

Companies found guilty of failing to observe this portion of the FCRA can be fined between $100 to $1,000 per violation, a potentially huge sum for retailers that print tens of thousands of receipts per day.

The plaintiffs filed most of their cases in California, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a pair of decisions that signaled it was apt to be more lenient in deciding which actions (or inactions) constitute a "willful" violation of the FCRA. The Ninth Circuit sent that signal in Safeco Insurance v. Burr and Geico General Insurance v. Edo, saying the insurers violated the FCRA when they failed to tell customers anytime that low credit scores affected the rates they paid. The AP story on Monday's decision says that consumer groups point to the notification requirement in FCRA as "the cornerstone to cleansing credit reports of inaccurate information."

The Ninth Circuit held that defendants could be found liable for a willful violation of the FCRA absent proof that they either actually knew that they would be violating the statute or acted in reckless disregard of whether they were violating it.

The two insurance cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, which on Monday reversed the Ninth Circuit's opinions, sending them back to the lower courts for further deliberation. The High Court's majority opinion, written by Justice David Souter, effectively confined the Ninth Circuit's open-ended definition of what kinds of actions constitute reckless disregard. In order for a company to be found liable for a reckless violation, Souter wrote, its conduct must involve an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known to a company or is so obvious that it should have been known.

Charles A. Patrizia, a partner with the Washington office of law firm Paul Hastings, which is representing a number of the retailers targeted in the class-action suits,
said the high court's ruling was a positive development for the defendants, but he doubted that the any of the plaintiffs would go so far as to drop their cases as a result of today's decision.

"So now the question becomes, even with the expiration date printed on the receipt and only part of the credit card number, is there an unjustifiably high risk that someone is going to figure out a way to guess those last missing digits and use it? That risk seems pretty low."

Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department prosecutor who now serves as a managing director at FTI Consulting, called Monday's decision good news for the retailers in the class-action cases, but said the jury was still out for its impact on consumer rights.

"While this decision doesn't mean companies can avoid liability simply by avoiding knowing about legal requirements, it means companies are free to be wrong, as long as they're not grossly wrong," Rasch said.