Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to helping plan the 2001 terrorist attacks. His lawyers now claim court-imposed secrecy undermined Moussaoui's ability to present an adequate defense, so the plea should be thrown out and a new trial granted.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals will conduct Monday's hearing in two parts. They'll meet in open court and then close the hearing for matters involving classified information.

They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.

The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.

There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.

The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out.

"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."

It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.

Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.

"Somebody's going to earmark it somewhere," said Howard Marlowe, a consultant for a coalition working to preserve beaches.

The ruling says the Israeli government must allow access to reporters whenever the borders are otherwise open. The court said it assumed the crossings would be closed "only in dire circumstances of concrete danger."

The Foreign Press Association, representing reporters based in Israel and the Palestinian areas, had appealed to overturn the ban.

The ruling "reinforces the protection of freedom of the press and the freedom of movement as fundamental rights that could be restricted only under extreme circumstances," said Gilead Sher, attorney for the organization.

Since the offensive ended, Israel has restored access to Gaza for reporters. The ruling would apply to future conflicts, Sher said.

Israel imposed restrictions on entry to Gaza in early November as a cease-fire with Gaza's Hamas rulers began to fray. It tightened the rules after launching a military offensive Dec. 27 and ignored a Supreme Court order six days later to allow limited access to international reporters.

Though the ban was instituted well before heavy fighting began, the government argued the security situation made it unsafe for journalists to visit.

Insurers who paid medical expenses for claimants in the settlement — one of the largest ever in the pharmaceutical industry — have been trying to recoup their expenses from the claimants. The insurers placed liens against any amounts recovered by thousands of former Vioxx users or their survivors, and unsuccessfully tried to make plaintiff lawyers disclose identities of all Vioxx claimants.

Under an agreement approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans, the amount the more than 100 private insurers participating in the deal can recover from liens will be reduced by at least half. There's also a sliding scale that limits the total an insurer can recover from each claimant, attorney Christopher Seeger, who negotiated the agreement, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Insurers could get at most 15 percent of a $100,000 settlement, or $15,000, and 10 percent of any settlements worth more than $250,000. It's the first such settlement with insurers in a mass litigation case, Seeger said.

"It's a great deal for the (insurance) carriers. It's a very good deal for the claimants," said Seeger, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated federal Vioxx cases.

Drugmaker Merck & Co., based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., pulled Vioxx off the market in September 2004 amid mounting evidence it greatly increased the risk of heart attack, stroke and death. That triggered tens of thousands of lawsuits from Vioxx users who claimed they were harmed.

The Findlay, Ohio-based tire company's lawsuit sought $189 million from attorney John Booth Farese of Ashland, the Farese law firm and attorney Bruce Kaster of Ocala, Fla. It stemmed from the release of a legal document that Cooper claims hurt its stock.

Terms of the settlement announced Wednesday were not disclosed.

"Cooper Tire is very pleased with the settlement of this case," said Cooper Tire spokeswoman Patricia J. Brown. She declined further comment, citing the confidentiality of the settlement.

Cooper Tire attorney Randall Smith of New Orleans said he was a little disappointed the case didn't go to trial.

"We were ready to try the case," he said. "But settlement's in the best interests of all concerned. You never know the outcome" of a trial.

Farese and Kaster said they were satisfied with the results.

According to court documents, Cooper Tire alleged that former employee Cathy Barnett signed a separation agreement with a clause that prevented her from making negative comments about the company.

The tire manufacturer claimed that despite the agreement, Barnett executed an affidavit, prepared with Farese, containing false and disparaging statements about Cooper Tire.

Farese provided Barnett's affidavit to another attorney, who provided it to Kaster for use in a lawsuit against Cooper Tire in Arkansas. Cooper Tire alleged Kaster, the attorney for families of four Arkansas residents killed in a 1998 accident blamed on a tire blowout, leaked the affidavit to the media. That case was settled in 2002.

The affidavit had to do with the destruction of company documents by Barnett and another worker on the order of a Cooper Tire official in Tupelo. Barnett said the documents were related to the Arkansas lawsuit.

As a result, Cooper Tire claimed its stock lost substantial value.

The company alleged Kaster paid Farese $50,000 after the Arkansas lawsuit was settled.

Farese contended in court documents that he was protecting his client and insists Cooper Tire wasn't damaged.

Kaster said in court papers that he learned about the affidavit from an attorney associated with the Cooper Tire case in Arkansas and went after it to benefit his own client, saying the media already had access to it.

Attorney Samuel E. Adam told The Associated Press on Thursday that a lawsuit challenging what he called "completely unfair" Senate trial rules is being prepared and could be filed to the state Supreme Court within days, pending a final decision on whether to move forward.

Blagojevich's trial is set to begin Monday.

The governor told the AP he has no intention of mounting a defense unless rules are changed before the Senate trial that will determine whether he's thrown out of office.

"Give me a right to call witnesses, give me a right to subpoena witnesses and documents, to properly prepare a case — and I'll be the first one there," said Blagojevich, whose voice rose as he spoke. Otherwise, "I'm not going to be a party to a process like that.

"And if it means I have to sacrifice myself to a higher cause, for the people of Illinois and for the principle of due process and the right to call witnesses, then so be it," Blagojevich said.

But Blagojevich added he does not intend to resign.

"I'm not going to resign, of course not," he said. "I've done absolutely nothing wrong."

In an outline of potential arguments provided to the AP, Adam critcized House impeachment proceedings for denying Blagojevich's attorneys the right to cross-examine witnesses. It also said senators must accept House evidence that assumes various claims against the governor are true, such as federal corruption charges and allegations Blagojevich illegally expanded a health care program.