A federal prosecutor has told an appeals court in Ohio that five jailed members of a Midwest militia are a threat to public safety. The prosecutor says they should stay in jail until they're tried on charges of plotting to overthrow the government.

But attorneys for the defendants told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that the government hasn't proven their clients are dangerous.

The defendants are among nine members of the Michigan-based Hutaree (hoo-TAH'-ray) accused of conspiracy to commit sedition. Two from Michigan and two from Ohio have been released as they await trial.

A federal judge has said the remaining five, from Michigan and Indiana, could go home with electronic monitors. The government is appealing that order.

The appeals court did not issue a ruling Tuesday.

Amera Akl's family says they're planning to post a $750,000 bond and that it's possible she could be released later this week.

The couple were taken into custody last week after prosecutors said an FBI informant provided them with $200,000 in cash.

The couple were alleged to be preparing to hide the money in a vehicle that prosecutors said was to be shipped to Lebanon.

Medmal News

“Dr. William J. Erwin failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care for an OB/GYN in the year 2007, and as a result, Rebecca Gatti, a newborn baby girl, suffered severe brain damage which is lifelong and irreversible.” Those brutally frank words were from the Louisiana Medical Review Board to Ryan and Susan Gatti, the parents of their new baby girl Rebecca, explaining the irreversible brain damage Rebecca suffered due to the negiligence of Dr. Erwin. Rebecca now requires round-the-clock care for the rest of her life, with no chance whatsoever for improvement. Today, The Insider Exclusive will take you “Behind the Headlines” of this real life couple, Ryan and Susan Gatti, who entrusted their child’s health and welfare to this grossly incompetent doctor. We will meet not only the Gattis’ but also their lawyer, John Hammons of Nelson & Hammons, who for almost 30 YEARS has been one of Louisiana’s leading medical malpractice and nursing home negligence lawyers, “Standing Up for People Who Cannot Stand Up for Themselves.” The Insider Exclusive has also learned some hard cold facts that completely contradict all the myths that the insurance companies and their lobbyists have been feeding the public for years regarding medical malpractice cases like the Gattis’ and why they falsely claim that caps on medical malpractice verdicts are necessary. All of these myths are designed to protect the insurance companies’ and the doctors’ financial interests, while victimizing the healthcare interests of patients.

John Hammons is one of Louisiana’s leading medical malpractice and nursing home negligence lawyers, and is often called upon by individuals as well as by other lawyers to assist them in the most difficult of cases. He has served on the Governor’s Commission on Medical Malpractice, which provided him with significant insight in this area of developing law. John was also among the first lawyers in Louisiana emphasizing the handling of medical malpractice cases three decades ago. He has been at the forefront of precedent-setting cases, and is often invited to speak before legal and medical groups. John holds an undergraduate degree from Northeast Louisiana University and a law degree from Louisiana State University.

Nelson & Hammons has championed the rights of victims of medical malpractice since 1980, having successfully represented hundreds of such patients or their families. With its office in Shreveport, Nelson & Hammons remains committed to quality medical care for its clients and their families as well as obtaining just compensation for those patients who have been seriously injured as a result of substandard medical care. With two attorneys specializing in the handling of medical malpractice, nursing home negligence and related matters, Nelson & Hammons is uniquely positioned to effectively and thoroughly investigate and prosecute such cases.

You can contact John Hammons at 318-227-2401, or www.nelsonhammonslaw.com

The U.S. Supreme Court derailed a key part of Arizona's campaign finance system on Tuesday by at least temporarily blocking extra money for publicly funded candidates outspent by privately financed rivals or targeted by independent groups' spending.

The court said in a brief order that it will prevent the state from using its system of so-called matching funds at least until the justices decide whether to hear the full appeal of opponents of the key provision of the state's campaign funding system.

Distribution of matching funds was to start June 22, but it could be the fall before the court decides even whether to accept the case. Arizona's primary election is Aug. 24.

Publicly funded candidates get matching funds when they're outspent by privately funded rivals or targeted by independent groups' spending.

Critics contend matching funds chill free-speech rights of privately financed candidates and their contributors by inhibiting fundraising and spending. State officials defend matching funds, saying they help combat contributions-for-favors corruption and encourage more people to run for office. Also, blocking matching funds would be disruptive to candidates already committed to running with public funding, officials argued.

State regulators and the New Mexico Environmental Law Center are asking the justices to order a District Court judge in Lovington to reverse an earlier decision that halted the effort by New Energy Economy to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Judge William Shoobridge granted a preliminary injunction in April that prohibited the state Environmental Improvement Board from continuing proceedings on New Energy Economy's petition.

Petition supporters argue that if allowed to stand, the judge's ruling would cripple state agencies' ability to carry out appointed responsibilities. They say the high court must hear the case because it raises questions about separation of powers and judicial interference in an administrative process.

New Mexico's largest utility, four state lawmakers and other industry groups sued in January to stop the Environmental Improvement Board from considering the petition. New Energy Economy and regulators countered with a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, a move that Shoobridge rejected.

Public Service Company of New Mexico, one of the plaintiffs, has argued that a state cap on greenhouse gas emissions would be costly for businesses and utility customers and that the emissions debate should be settled by the federal government.

The British branches of Vodafone, Telefonica O2, T-Mobile and Orange had argued against the EU's imposing maximum price limits for "roaming" charges or extra fees for making or receiving calls outside the user's home nation.

The European Court of Justice dismissed their arguments, saying the EU's executive commission did not abuse its powers when it fixed limits for roaming fees across the 27-nation bloc in 2009.

Europeans have long complained about high roaming fees they were being charged.

"That high level of retail charges had been regarded as a persistent problem by public authorities and consumer protection associations," the court said in a statement.

It said the average level of roaming charges in the European Union was euro1.15 ($1.37) per minute, more than five times the actual cost that telecommunications companies paid to transfer the calls to each other.

The court also backed the maximum price set by EU regulators, saying they had carefully examined the economic impact.