The latest move in the separation of powers fight between the legislative and executive branches came as members of Congress began returning from their Fourth of July recess. An atmosphere of high tension accompanied the resumption of work as a fight also loomed there between majority Democrats and some key Republicans and Bush over his Iraq war policy.

In his letter regarding subpoenas the Judiciary panels issued, Fielding said, "The president feels compelled to assert executive privilege with respect to the testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers."

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," the letter said.

Fielding was responding to a 10 a.m. EDT deadline set by the Democratic chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, for the White House to explain it's privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it and provide logs of which documents were being withheld.

As expected, Fielding refused to comply. He said he was acting at Bush's direction, and he complained that the committees had decided to enforce the subpoenas whether or not the White House complied.

"The committees have already prejudged the question, regardless of the production of any privilege log," Fielding wrote. "In such circumstances, we will not be undertaking such a project, even as a further accommodation."

Conyers' response left little doubt where the matter was headed.

"Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of Executive Privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the House chairman said in a statement.

The privilege claim on testimony by former aides won't necessarily prevent them from testifying this week, as scheduled.

Leahy said that Taylor, Bush's former political director, may testify as scheduled before the Senate panel on Wednesday. The House Judiciary Committee scheduled Miers' testimony for Thursday, but it was unclear whether she would appear, according to congressional aides speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations were under way.

The exchange Monday was the latest step in a slow-motion legal waltz between the White House and lawmakers toward eventual contempt-of-Congress citations. If neither side yielded in that circumstance, it would go to a federal court.

The probe into the U.S. attorney firings was only one of several Democratic-led investigations of the White House and its use of executive power spanning the war in Iraq, Bush's secretive wiretapping program and his commutation last week of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence.

Meanwhile, several Democratic-run investigations are playing out this week as they head toward contempt of Congress citations and, if neither side yields, federal court.

On Iraq, Democrats expect to resume legislative challenges to Bush's policy on the war as the Senate this week takes up a major defense spending bill. The administration has been concerned about an escalation of Iraqi war fervor. So much so that Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled a four-nation South American tour this week to work with the White House on Iraq policy. unclear whether she will appear.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said Monday there had been "a steady erosion for the president's policy" in Congress because of the "tremendous loss of life among our troops" in June and "the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue the political reforms that are necessary to quell the sectarian violence."

Collins is among the Senate Republicans seeking to see U.S. troops departing Iraq by early 2008. Bush's strategy for a short-term troop increase to stabilize Baghdad and certain parts of Iraq has not been successful, she said.

"The president argued that we needed to undertake the surge in order to give the Iraq government the time, the space to pursue the political reforms," Collins said on CNN. "That hasn't happened. Instead it has been our troops who are making the sacrifice, who are bearing the burden, and that's why you see a real change in support for the Iraq strategy."

In Baghdad Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state.

THLD closed Friday's regular trading session at $1.18, down $0.06 or 4.84%. However, in after hours trading, shares grew $0.0147 or 1.25%, trading at $1.1947.

China's top court closed loopholes for bribing officials, issuing rules to stem rampant graft that threatens to undermine the Communist Party's grip on power.

The court and top prosecutor jointly issued the rules Sunday in an effort to "catch up with the tricks of wily, corrupt officials," the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

The rules widen the definition of bribery to include money, gifts or favors given to the family members or proxies of officials, or to officials after they retire.

Officials can be charged with graft even if they don't personally get a bribe, and the rules make it illegal to help officials covertly arrange bribes.

The rules come a month after President Hu Jintao stressed again that China must urgently tackle corruption, a deep-rooted problem the party has been battling publicly for a decade.

To fight corruption in the state-controlled media, the government posted on the Internet the names of all Chinese print and television journalists and listed the contact information for their organizations.

Shady dealings by media employees using the names of their newspapers have "marred the reputation of Chinese media," Xinhua reported Sunday, announcing the list.

Chinese reporters often cut deals to write positive stories or suppress negative news in return for bribes or promises to buy advertising in their publications.

“We believe the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) reached erroneous conclusions that could have been corrected by seeking clarification from Orrick before LCB published its audit report,” said the letter from James Houpt.

But the letter went on to say that the law firm considers Nevada to be a valuable client, and the firm's “intent is not to risk that relationship.”

State Treasurer Kate Marshall said the check already has been deposited in a state bank account.

“They respectfully disagreed with the audit, but they also felt it was the right decision for them to make the overpayment identified in the audit,” Marshall told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The state of Nevada is a little over $95,000 better off for it.”

As a result of the audit of the college savings program while under the review of then-Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Marshall sent a letter to the firm seeking a response.

Orrick had served as bond counsel to the state at the time the services were rendered for the program. The contract allowed the firm to provide legal services to other state agencies as well. The firm currently does not have any contract to serve as bond counsel with the state.

The treasurer's office is awaiting a response from another firm that did business with the state for the college savings program on a separate issue raised in the audit.

A Georgia consulting firm, GIF Services, was overpaid $300,000, according to the audit released in May.

The audit was sought by legislators after Marshall said in March that it appeared funds for the program were diverted for unauthorized legal expenditures and marketing costs.

The audit also raised the issue of whether Krolicki broke state law by not depositing $6 million in state-earned fees into the state treasury. The audit has been turned over to the attorney general's office for an investigation.

Krolocki, now lieutenant governor, has said he broke no laws in his management of the program during his eight years as treasurer.

The program was established by the 2001 Legislature to allow parents to invest money in mutual funds to build up college funds for their children.

None of the money that parents invested is missing or ended up in an improper account, according to the audit.

The complaint alleges that, between January 25, 2006 and July 27, 2006, Plexus failed to disclose that the company’s position in the defense market was weakening and that operations in the United Kingdom would have to be reorganized. Because of this information, Plexus lacked a “reasonable basis” for the positive statements it made during that period about the company’s future growth.

According to the complaint, Plexus “shocked investors” when, on July 27, 2006, the company lowered its earnings outlook for the year, based in part on limited revenue growth. The plaintiff alleges that this news caused shares of the company’s stock to fall $10.71 per share, or approximately 32 percent, to close at $22.89 per share.

The complaint alleges that, in a conference call following the July 26 quarterly report, Dean Foate, president, CEO and chairman of the board of directors, said that fourth quarter revenue outlook was softer than had been previously implied.
Foate and F. Gordon Bitter – chief financial officers – and John Nussbaum, who also served as chairman of the board, are all named individually as defendants.

The complaint alleges that because Foate, Bitter and Nussbaum controlled the contents of the company’s reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the public, they had the opportunity to correct the statements. According to the plaintiff, the defendants knew that the statements made by Plexus were “materially false and misleading.” 
The suit also accuses corporate officers and board members of insider trading, alleging that company officers were motivated to misrepresent revenue growth to allow company insiders to “sell 664,666 shares of their personally-held Plexus common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $26.3 million.”

The suit claims that Foate, Bitter and Nussbaum all benefited from selling stock during this period, as well as executive officers Michael Verstegen, Joseph Kronser, Thomas Czajkowski, David Clark, Paul Ehlers, David Rust, Joseph Kaufman, Simon Painter and George Setton and board members Ralf Boer, David Drury and Thomas Prosser.

The second lawsuit, filed June 29 by the Alan M. Ozell Trust, reasserts the accusation that Plexus withheld relevant information that caused the stock price to drop, but does not accuse anyone in the company of insider trading.

Both lawsuits request compensation for all damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as costs and expenses.
Plexus issued a statement on June 25 acknowledging that a class action complaint had been filed against the company, though Plexus claimed it had not yet received a copy of the complaint.

“Plexus believes that all of its public statements were correct and properly made; it thus intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation,” according to the statement.

Angelo Ninivaggi, vice president, general counsel and secretary for Plexus, did not return a call requesting an updated statement.
The law firms of Ademi & O’Reilly, LLP and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP are representing the plaintiffs in both cases. The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

There is no such thing as 100 percent protection from the sun, the European Union's consumer chief warned holidaymakers on Monday and she banned the words "sunblock" and "100 percent sun protection" on sun cream.

Such labeling is misleading and contributes to thousands of deaths each year, Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva said.

"Consumers need clear, accurate information on sunscreen products so they can make informed choices," she said in a statement.

"There is no such thing as 100 percent protection and we need to reinforce that essential message. This is just one of a number of measures that are necessary for effective protection against the sun."

According to Cancer Research UK, the number of skin cancer cases in that country has more than doubled since the early 1980s with over 2,000 deaths from skin cancer each year.

Under the new rules, which came into force on Monday and will be phased in before the end of the year, the new labels will also include a new UVA logo and standardized terms such as "low," "medium," "high" and "very high" protection.

UVA is the term used for ultraviolet light that can cause chronic conditions such as the appearance of aging and interferes with the human immune system. 

UVB radiation is the cause of sunburn, but damages only the skin's outer layer or epidermis. Although both types of radiation are important contributors to the risk of skin cancer, experts believe UVA plays a bigger role.

The Commission said sunscreen products with only UVB protection may provide a false sense of safety because they do not protect against UVA radiation.

As labels for 2007 have already been printed, around 20 percent of sunscreen products on the shelves will feature the new labels.

"So for the moment consumers are advised to read labels very carefully during this summer," Kuneva said.