The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will take the special step of releasing audiotapes of oral arguments on the same day that it hears a case challenging the District's gun law.

Every argument before the justices is recorded, but the tapes normally are not available until well after the court's term has ended. But beginning in 2000, with the arguments in Bush v. Gore, the court has released same-day audiotapes in high-profile cases when there is substantial media interest.

Because the court is not open to cameras, the audiotapes are the only recordings of the proceedings.

The case of District of Columbia v. Heller, to be heard March 18, will be the court's first consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. Last year, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the District's ban on private handgun possession violated the amendment.

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm, and if so, what restrictions government may place on that right. It is one of the most prominent cases of the court's term. More than 60 organizations and individuals have filed amicus briefs to support the city or those challenging what is acknowledged as the nation's strictest gun control law.

This term, the court released same-day audiotapes in two other important cases, one involving the rights of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison and the other involving the constitutionality of lethal injections.

The arguments in the gun control case are scheduled for 10 a.m. March 18. Each side will receive 30 minutes to present its case, and U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement has been granted 15 minutes for the federal government's views. The tapes will be released soon after the proceedings.

Clement's brief agrees with the law's challengers that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, but it argues that the appeals court too broadly decided the case against the District. It recommends that the case be returned to lower courts.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern California District of California, San Jose Division, issued its ruling on Friday. The preliminary injunction prevents the defendants from selling, licensing, distributing, transferring or marketing Flash Enhancer and any product based on Flash Enhancer.

According to Verigy, the court found that Flash Enhancer "is substantially based upon Verigy's trade secrets."

Verigy said defendant Romi Mayder was employed by the company until September 2006 and began developing an integrated circuit product for a new business venture while still employed by Verigy. Mayder's brother, Wesley Mayder, is also named as a defendant.

In a phone interview, Romi Mayder noted that the judge denied the absolute injunction that Verigy sought. Mayder said the information used to develop his product was publicly available and that his use of it amounted to a "five-month head start."

Verigy sued the defendants in August 2007 for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, statutory and common law unfair competition and other charges.

The court issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants on Aug. 24, which was still in effect when the preliminary injunction was issued.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday he didn't know of behind-the-scenes efforts by EPA officials to blunt state attempts to reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Those efforts occurred even as the Bush administration argued in court that states are free to enact tougher mercury controls from power plants, The Associated Press reported last month, based on internal EPA documents.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., questioned EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the report at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations environment subcommittee.

"Has anyone with EPA ever pressured any state against instituting any more restrictive mercury regulation?" asked Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I don't recall having any firsthand knowledge of that," said Johnson. "I don't know if they have, no I don't," he added.

Leahy cautioned Johnson that such pressure on states was inappropriate, and if it did occur, "then the EPA gave misleading information to the courts, which is an extremely serious matter."

A federal appeals court last month struck down the Bush administration's industry-friendly approach for mercury reduction that allowed plants with excessive smokestack emissions to buy pollution rights from other plants that foul the air less.

Internal EPA documents obtained by the advocacy group Environmental Defense show attempts over the past two years to bar state efforts to make their plants drastically cut mercury pollution instead of trading for credits that would let them continue it.

Many states did not want their power plants to be able to buy their way out of having to reduce mercury pollution.

The push to rein in uncooperative states continued until the eve of the Feb. 8 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that struck down the EPA's program. A day before that ruling, the White House Office of Management and Budget approved a draft regulation to impose a "federal implementation plan" for mercury reduction in states whose mercury control measures did not meet EPA approval.

One of North Carolina's largest law firms is merging with a national giant, the firms announced Wednesday.

Helms Mulliss & Wicker, which has more than 145 lawyers in Charlotte, Raleigh and Wilmington, is combining with McGuireWoods, a Richmond, Va.-based firm with 750 attorneys worldwide that opened in Charlotte in 1998.

When the merger takes effect March 31, the combined firm will be known as McGuireWoods and will have about 160 lawyers in Charlotte.

The merger is a result of clients' changing needs, McGuireWoods Chairman Richard Cullen said in a press release.

"We need to match our capabilities and geographic reach to meet those needs," he said.

Helms Mulliss' chairman, Peter J. Covington, will become vice chairman of McGuireWoods. Scott Vaughn, Helms Mulliss' finance group leader, will become managing partner of McGuireWoods' Charlotte office.

Civil Rights Litigation. Gary discusses alleged police brutality and alleged misconduct by the Hawthorne, California, and Manhattan Beach, California, police. Joining Gary is Scott Tierney, who alleges he suffered serious personal injuries during a booking process with the Hawthorne police. In this powerful interview, Gary and Scott provide riveting testimony about a series of allegedly grave actions by the police and the need to educate the public about these shocking details. Gary further addresses the broader problem of police misconduct and its threat to public safety and community trust. Police misconduct also includes accepting bribes, improper search and seizure, harassment and racism in law enforcement. Police misconduct violates the oath of peace officers and their responsibilities as public servants. Victims of police misconduct can be wrongfully convicted of crimes, lose property and freedom, and face social stigmatization. Police misconduct also creates distrust between police and the public they are meant to protect. Police misconduct often goes uncorrected because people do not understand their rights as citizens. Prevention of police misconduct by an informed public can avert violence, wrongful convictions, and abuse of authority. In general, police misconduct is the exception - most police officers are law-abiding citizens, but when police misconduct does occur, police departments can fail to address the problem in the appropriate manner.

Gary S. Casselman is a superb trial attorney with extensive experience in the fields of criminal defense, personal injury and police misconduct. He has authored and lectured about police misconduct litigation and is a court qualified expert in matters such as legal malpractice and enjoys membership in the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Gary is also a member of the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles and Police Watch. He holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and a law degree from Southwestern University School of Law.

You can contact Gary at 310-390-4406

http://www.lawyers.com/garycasselman

or email gary.casselman2@verizon.net

Johnson & Perkinson, a litigation boutique law firm based in South Burlington, Vermont, has extensive experience prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud. Attorneys Johnson and Perkinson are both former employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Dedicated to maximizing shareholder return, members of Johnson & Perkinson have prosecuted complex class actions alleging securities or consumer fraud/deception on behalf of investors/consumers against numerous public companies since 1985, resulting in the recovery of many hundreds of millions of dollars, and have been singled out for excellence by various courts. The firm is litigating, or has recently resolved litigation, as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in securities class actions against Xerox, Priceline, Wireless Facilities, i2 and Xchange, and serves on the Executive Committee in the Global Crossing case.

The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with making a series of materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Johnson & Perkinson attorneys James F. Conway, III, Eben F. Duval, or Christopher Allen toll free at 1-888-459-7855; via email at email@jpclasslaw.com; through our website at www.jpclasslaw.com; or by mail at Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Though Johnson & Perkinson has not filed a Complaint against Superior Offshore at this time, attorneys at Johnson & Perkinson can investigate your potential claims and help you decide if seeking appointment as a Lead Plaintiff is right for you. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by your decision to not seek appointment as a Lead Plaintiff.