"Counterbalancing any cognizable interest that public employees may have in avoiding disclosure of their salaries is the strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority opinion signed by three other justices. Another three justices each wrote separate opinions essentially agreeing with the majority take, with Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin arguing that police officers' salaries should be exempt from public disclosure.

The ruling Monday was the result of a Contra Costa Times' lawsuit against Oakland and it also should settle an almost identical lawsuit filed by the San Jose Mercury News demanding the names and salaries of every San Jose city worker who earned more than $100,000 annually.

"I think this sets the rule for the state," said media attorney Karl Olson, who represented the Times. "These are landmark cases that serve the public's right to know."

Some of the largest newspapers companies serving California, including the owners of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, New York Times and the Orange County Register filed friends of the court briefs in support of the Times.

Duane Reno, who represented the Oakland police officers argued that publicizing the salaries would open the employees to unwanted sales calls.

"Unfortunately the Supreme Court didn't feel that was a big enough invasion of privacy," Reno said.

The court also ruled in a separate 5-2 opinion that police officers' names, hiring and termination dates compiled in a massive state Department of Justice computer database also are fair game.

"It should have been a no brainer," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "We are discovering that police departments across the country are increasingly withholding this kind of information."

The Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit joined the Los Angeles Times in its legal action against the California DOJ, which refused to turn over a decade's worth of police officer information to the newspaper. Several other news organizations, including The Associated Press, also filed court papers in support of the Times' case.

The newspaper said it planned to use the information to track the movements of police officers from one department to the other while also examining staffing levels.

Cullen challenged his conviction on the grounds that the act does not apply to captive-bred birds and that its failure to specifically define the term "personal pet" rendered it unconstitutionally vague.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those arguments in United States v. Cullen, 06-0607-cr.

Judges Richard Cardamone and Chester Straub, along with Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl, sitting by designation, decided the appeal.

Writing for the court, Cardamone noted that judges frequently describe odd legal provisions or ingenious arguments as a "rare bird."

"We have before us as the subject matter literally a rara avis in terris or a rare bird of the earth," he wrote.

The court described Cullen as "an internationally known professional falconer." He was hired at one time by the City of New York to help restore bald eagles to Inwood Hill Park. Cullen once claimed to own one of the largest collections of birds of prey in the country. At the time of his trial, he maintained 47 birds of prey in Goshen.

But Cardamone added that Cullen "also has a history of questionable activity involving exotic birds."

According to the court, Cullen wanted to add the black sparrowhawk to his collection, but he did not meet the criteria for any of the four exceptions to the Act's importation ban: he had not been away from the United States for more than a year, so he did not come within the personal pet exception; he was not conducting scientific research; he was not involved in zoological breeding or display programs; and he was not engaged in cooperative breeding programs.

The government alleged Cullen used an American couple living in London, Joseph and Kristen Kulak, as a front for the importation in 1999 of three black sparrowhawks said to be the couple's personal pets.

One of the birds died in transit, and a Wildlife Service inspector at JFK Airport refused to believe Cullen's claim that he was just picking up the remaining birds for the Kulaks. The officer quarantined the birds pending an investigation.

A second bird died while in quarantine. The lone remaining bird was turned over to Cullen in 2000 with the understanding that he would return it to the Kulaks.

Instead, Cullen made a breeding arrangement with the owner of the only other black sparrowhawk in North America. That failed and the bird was returned to Cullen.

Kulak testified against Cullen, pursuant to a nonprosecution agreement, at a jury trial in 2005 before Southern District Judge Colleen McMahon. Cullen was convicted of knowingly importing exotic birds and making false statements about his activities. However, he was acquitted of illegally importing saker falcons.

WILD VERSUS CAPTIVE

At the 2nd Circuit, Cardamone addressed first Cullen's contention that Congress passed the Wild Bird Conservation Act because it was concerned about protecting birds in the wild -- not captive-bred birds.

"Yet, nothing in the language of the statute itself supports Cullen's assertion," Cardamone said. "Quite the contrary -- the statute provides that any exotic bird listed ... is covered, with no limiting language as to where or how an exotic bird is bred."

The judge added that a "Wild Bird Act provision mandating the Secretary of the Interior to exempt selected captive-bred species from the act's prohibitions on importation ... conclusively demonstrates that Congress aimed to have all other captive-bred species, like the Black Sparrowhawk, covered under the act. Otherwise, this exemption would be meaningless."

Cullen's complaint about the vagueness of the personal pet exception required the court to employ the requirement that a law must give "fair warning" to the accused of exactly what activity it prohibited.

"Although we recognize in many English words there lurk uncertainties ... to meet the fair warning prong an ounce of common sense is worth more than an 800-page dictionary," Cardamone wrote. Here, he said, the words personal and pet are "comprehensible to an ordinary person."

"The common meanings of these words, coupled with the Wild Bird Act's explicit provisions as to who qualifies for the personal pet exception, gave adequate notice to defendant that the activities he was planning did not fit within the pet exception," Cardamone said.

Peter Ginsberg of Crowell & Moring in New York represented Cullen.

"We're obviously disappointed in the circuit's opinion," Ginsberg said. "Tom has dedicated his life to protecting and expanding the bird population and if he made a technical mistake in how he obtained some birds -- and it's clear the jury did think he made mistakes -- it was certainly not out of malice or the desire to break the law."

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jesse Furman, Stephen Ritchen and John Hillebrecht represented the government.

Yahoo yesterday asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the Internet giant of abetting torture and abuse of pro-democracy writers in China.

Yahoo acknowledged releasing personal user information about the writers to the Chinese government, but said it had to comply with the country's lawful request and therefore cannot be held liable. Its 40-page response was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for Northern California.

Advocacy groups view the suit as an important test case because it asks U.S. courts to punish corporations for human rights violations abroad. Internet companies such as Yahoo entering the booming Chinese market have had to alter user policies or allow censorship in order to comply with the country's laws.

The lawsuit was filed this spring by The World Organization for Human Rights USA on behalf of the imprisoned writers.

Two Chinese writers who used Yahoo's e-mail service to distribute their work are serving 10-year prison sentences. Shi Tao, a reporter and editor at Contemporary Business News in China, was arrested in November 2004 for publishing a document that the Chinese government considered a state secret and pleaded guilty. Wang Xiaoning, an author and editor of pro-democracy publications, was arrested in September 2002 and convicted for "incitement to subvert state power." Both are believed to have been abused and tortured while in custody, according to the lawsuit.

In its response, Yahoo argued that it did not "willfully" provide information about the online activities of the writers.

"Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered to violate another nation's laws," the company said in its filing. Chinese law requires anyone who receives a request for information as part of an investigation to comply and prohibits challenging such a request in the Chinese courts, Yahoo said in its filing.

Morton Sklar, the human rights organization's executive director, questioned whether the Chinese government's request for information was lawful. "But even if it was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law, but U.S. law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad," Sklar said in a statement.

Yahoo spokeswoman Kelley Benander said in a statement that the company supported freedom of expression around the world and would continue to work with human rights organizations "on a global framework for technology companies operating in countries that restrict free expression and privacy."

"The real issue here is the plaintiffs' outrage at the behavior and laws of the Chinese government," she said. "The U.S. court system is not the forum for addressing these political concerns."

Berkley's widow, Monique Berkley, 27, and Canty's friend, Latwon Johnson, 20, also are charged with first-degree murder in Paul Berkley's death.

Investigators accused Monique Berkley of luring her husband to a park on Dec. 18, 2005, so Canty and Johnson could shoot him and the three could share money from Paul Berkley's insurance policy.

Paul Berkley had just returned from a tour of duty in the Middle East. Investigators said he had learned his wife was having an affair and told his daughter he planned to seek a divorce.

"After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision," Bush said from Texas, where he is vacationing.

Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found and confirmed by the Senate, Bush said.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors, though a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.

"It has been one of my greatest privileges to lead the Department of Justice," Gonzales said, announcing his resignation effective Sept. 17 in a terse statement. He took no questions and gave no reason for stepping down.

Bush said the attorney general's "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons." Though some Republicans echoed the president's veiled slap at Democrats, Gonzales had few defenders left in Washington.

Many Republicans actually welcomed his departure, some quietly and others publicly so.

Congressional aides and lawmakers agreed that any nomination of a new attorney general was almost certain to be acrimonious. The easiest prospects, some said, might be a current or former colleague of senators charged with the confirmation. Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Monday that he would not accept the job, if offered.

But, he said, another current or former senator "might be just the ticket."

"If you have a former senator or a present senator or somebody who is well known to the Senate or the committee...that's always a big help if you know the person," Specter told reporters in a telephone call as he traveled from Warsaw to Paris.

Asked, too, about whether Chertoff might be a good candidate, Specter replied:

"I think he's a first-rate prospect."

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards applauded Gonzales' resignation, saying it was "better late than never."

The announcement came as a surprise to many in the administration. Gonzales was tight-lipped about his thinking before going on vacation more than a week ago and aides were planning events for the next several months.

After spending time with his family in Texas, however, and facing the prospect of returning to Washington for months of continued fights with Congress, he called the president on Friday.

The White House has asked anyone staying past Labor Day to stay the remainder of the president's term.

Gonzales, formerly Bush's White House counsel, served more than two years at the Justice Department. In announcing his decision, Gonzales reflected on his up-from-the-bootstraps life story; he's the son of migrant farm workers from Mexico who didn't finish elementary school.

"Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days," Gonzales said.

Bush steadfastly — and at times angrily — refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go.

Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress.

"Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said testily at the time. Actually, many in Congress had accused Gonzales of wrongdoing.

After the 52-year-old Gonzales called Bush Friday, the president had him come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture, a senior administration official said.

Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006, following Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, who had a high-ranking Pentagon job before going to the World Bank as its president, and top political and policy adviser Karl Rove.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., reacted to the announcement by saying the Justice Department under Gonzales had "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence."

As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay — prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists.

"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

In a warning to the White House, Reid suggested that investigations into the Justice Department will not end until Congress gets "to the bottom of this mess."

One matter still under investigation is the 2006 dismissal of several federal prosecutors, who serve at the president's pleasure. Lawmakers said the action appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections.

Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.

In April, Gonzales answered "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times while questioned by Congress about the firings. Even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive.

Not Bush. The president praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."

In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care recovering from surgery. Ashcroft refused.

Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive as recently as March because of the FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes.

The court's decision means that Prairie State's advanced technologies will meet or exceed compliance with state and federal regulations to protect the environment. The decision ends a six-year regulatory review process that included approval by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Prairie State will provide electricity to hundreds of communities from Missouri to Virginia. Equity partners include: American Municipal Power- Ohio; the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency; Indiana Municipal Power Agency; Kentucky Municipal Power Agency; Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission; Northern Illinois Municipal Power Agency; and Prairie Power Inc.

St. Louis-based Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) is one of the world's largest coal producers.