Bank of America Corp. has joined several other financial institutions in refusing to handle payments for WikiLeaks, the latest blow to the secret-releasing organization's efforts to continue operating under pressure from governments and the corporate world.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank's move adds to similar actions by Mastercard Inc. and PayPal Inc. Though previous moves have prompted reprisals by hackers, Bank of America's site is as well-protected as they come, security experts say.

Its site was problem-free through midafternoon Saturday.

"This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments," the bank said in a statement Saturday. The move was first reported by The Charlotte Observer.

Earlier this month, Internet "hacktivists" operating under the label "Operation Payback" claimed responsibility in a Twitter message for causing technical problems at the MasterCard website after it ended its relationship with WikiLeaks. PayPal saw its website subject to an attack that slowed it down but did not significantly affect payments.

Bank of America's website offers access to customer accounts through its home page, but it could be a tough nut for hackers to crack, security experts say.

Miller is appealing a state judge's decision to toss out his challenge to the handling of the election and counting of write-in ballots for Murkowski, who waged a write-in campaign after losing the GOP primary to Miller.

The state Supreme Court did not immediately rule Friday.

Miller wants the results of the election invalidated, and a recount to ensure what he has called a fair and accurate tally.

He watched Friday as his attorney, Michael Morley, told the court the state should be held to a strict reading of a law that calls for ovals on ballots to be filled in, and for the last name of a candidate or the name as it appears on the declaration of candidacy to be written.

The state, relying on case law, allowed for ballots with misspellings to be counted toward Murkowski's tally and used discretion in determining voter intent.

Murkowski attorney Scott Kendall told the high court Miller is "denying reality" in continuing in his legal challenge. But justices, particularly Daniel Winfree, grilled Kendall about his belief the case is moot, noting that there hasn't been a recount or a re-evaluation of challenged ballots that might add to Miller's tally.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., www.suemyadvisor.com, announced today it filed an arbitration claim against UBS Financial Services, Inc. (“UBS”), (NYSE: UBS) on behalf of an investor who lost the vast majority of his retirement savings as a result of the purchase of Lehman Brothers principal protected notes (“Notes”).  The claim alleges UBS was negligent and engaged in gross misconduct by misrepresenting and omitting material facts regarding the Notes.

UBS marketed the Notes as safe, secure, investments without informing the purchasers of the true risks associated with the Notes, including the fact that the Notes were tied to the credit worthiness of the guarantor, Lehman Brothers.   Furthermore, based on the examiner’s report of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, UBS engaged in short term lending transactions with Lehman Brothers known as Repo 105 transactions on a fully collaterized basis, while its trading force continued to solicit purchases of the Notes which contained 100% risk.  When Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the values of the Notes became essentially worthless. 

If you have purchased Lehman Brothers Notes or have sustained any other investment losses, the attorneys at the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses as a result of broker misconduct. 

For a free case evaluation or to discuss this matter, please contact the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com

An appeals court ruled Thursday to uphold most of the fraud convictions against a South Korean scientist disgraced in a cloning scandal that shook the international scientific community.

Hwang Woo-suk — who gained worldwide fame in 2004 with claims to have created the first cloned human embryos — was sentenced by a Seoul district court in October to two years in prison on charges of embezzling $800,000 in research funds and illegally buying human eggs. That sentence was suspended, allowing him to stay free if he were to break no laws for three years.

Both Hwang and prosecutors appealed the verdict.

The Seoul High Court upheld most of those convictions Thursday, but dismissed one involving an alleged $100,000 in embezzled funds for lack of evidence, and reduced Hwang's sentence to 18 months in prison, suspended for two years.

Hwang made no comment during the packed courtroom proceedings.

Both Hwang and prosecutors have one week to appeal to the Supreme Court. Prosecutors had earlier demanded a four-year prison term for Hwang.

Hwang and his former colleagues at Seoul National University claimed in a paper published in the journal Science in 2004 that they had created the world's first cloned human embryos — and had extracted stem cells from them.

An attorney sees a court's opinion upholding e-mail privacy as potentially groundbreaking and possibly helpful to his client, the founder of a company that sold male enhancement pills.

Lawyer Martin Weinberg said Wednesday that e-mail evidence should have been excluded from the government's case against Steven Warshak, who was convicted of fraud and other crimes related to his Ohio company. It sold products including Enzyte pills, known for their "Smiling Bob" commercials.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out Warshak's 25-year sentence Tuesday. The court also said Warshak's rights were violated when investigators obtained his e-mails without warrants, but it upheld his convictions.

The retention vote in which three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted was illegal, according to a lawsuit seeking to keep the three justices from being tossed from the bench.

The lawsuit claims the vote violated the Iowa Constitution, which requires judicial retention votes to be held on a separate ballot.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices Michael Streit and David Baker were voted off following a campaign by groups opposed to the court's unanimous decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa.

The Des Moines Register reported that the lawsuit, filed by attorneys Thomas W. George, John P. Roehrick and Carlton Salmons, asks for a temporary judicial order that would prohibit the judges from leaving the court when their terms expire at the end of December.