The Moscow Arbitration Court heard opening arguments today regarding the Russian Federation's $22.5 billion claim against The Bank of New York, Inc., now the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation , for money laundering activities the Bank had previously admitted.

"We believe it is offensive and an arrogant slap in the face to the judge, the court and The Russian Federation that the Bank of New York would fail to show to a hearing they were well aware of," said Maxim Smal, a Moscow-based attorney representing Russia's Federal Customs Service.

"We feel confident in the validity and strength of Russia's claim as well as our prospective to prevail in court with or without the defendant," he said. The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 10 at noon in Moscow.

"The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled last week, consistent with prior precedent, that the Russian judicial system is legitimate and honest such that any award in Russia should be fully collectible in the U.S. where the Bank of New York does business. Therefore, the Federation remains confident not only as to receiving a successful outcome, but also with obtaining complete satisfaction of the damages sought, especially now that the merger has created a company capable of satisfying any judgment awarded," said Smal.

On May 17, the Federal Customs Service for the Russian Federation filed a lawsuit with the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Bank of New York, the world's second-largest custodian of investor assets.

The lawsuit stems from a 2005 U.S. Department of Justice investigation that ended with a non-prosecution agreement forcing the Bank to pay $38 million to the U.S. government to settle two criminal probes and admitting it failed to report $7.5 billion in illegal Russian transactions.

Federal investigators determined several accounts that existed at the Bank were part of an illegal network that allowed Russian businesses to defraud their government of customs duties and tax revenues by transferring funds in and out of Russia in violation of currency controls.

Although the suit is being heard in a Russian court, it will be tried in accordance with U.S. law. Under accepted and clear legal principles, the Bank of New York has already made signed admissions to its criminal responsibility and its officers have been criminally convicted.

There is no doubt about the unhappiness of liberals with the current court, which now bears Mr. Bush's unmistakable imprint. They were reeling last week as the court finished up its first full term with Mr. Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. It was a session marked by a sharp turn to the right in a series of 5-to-4 decisions, from upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion to limiting school districts' ability to use racially conscious criteria to achieve or maintain integration.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail were furious, especially, some said, because of Mr. Roberts' promises of humility and respect for precedent, delivered repeatedly when he sought confirmation from the Senate. "Given what he said to us," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, "my Democratic colleagues and I would never have envisioned the string of decisions that he issued recently."

"He kept stressing modesty, stare decisis, not over-reaching, giving a large amount of weight to precedent, and now he sort of just flicks it off with the back of his hand," said Mr. Schumer, who voted against Mr. Roberts. "People are just shocked."

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and who voted for Mr. Roberts' confirmation, was equally unhappy. "I am extraordinarily disappointed when I find that, in almost a cavalier way, they've thrown aside Brown vs. the Board the Education," Mr. Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press." (That is a characterization that Mr. Roberts, and others, would no doubt dispute.)

But venting only goes so far. People for the American Way, the liberal advocacy group, launched a fund-raising drive this week with an e-mail message sent to 400,000 core activists. "Only you and I stand between the new Supreme Court and the continued chiseling away at the rights and freedoms we Americans hold dear," wrote Norman Lear, one of the founders of the group.

Promising to match every dollar contributed, and to organize around next year's Senate and Presidential campaigns, Mr. Lear concluded, "Together we can take back the court."

Liberals have been warning of the dangers of a Bush court since his 2000 campaign against Al Gore, but it was never an easy issue to drive home, even among people who support much of the progressive agenda, analysts say.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has studied public attitudes toward the court for Planned Parenthood and other groups, said it takes a long time to penetrate the public's consciousness about the importance of the nine justices.

"They don't know much about the court, they don't understand lifetime appointments, they think each president can have an impact," she added.

Mark Mellman, another Democratic pollster, said that in the past, "people had some confidence that the court was not going to change the way the country did business in dramatic ways."

In other words, liberals were often warning about potential dangers to their agenda from a changing Supreme Court. The issue was not a hypothetical for conservatives, who felt devastated, over the years, by decisions from previous courts, most notably Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

Now, some Democrats and their allies say they are hearing hypothetical worries turn to outrage, and not just in the Democratic cloakroom of the Senate. "The right has always been energized on this issue," said Mr. Schumer. "The recent decisions have now energized the left."

Democratic presidential campaigns quickly weighed in, and the issue is expected to be raised in several Senate races. A prime example is Maine, which has a centrist Republican up for re-election next year, Senator Susan Collins, who voted for both Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts.

Carol Andrews, communications director for the Maine Democratic Party, foreshadowed the fight to come, saying Ms. Collins' support for Mr. Alito, in particular, "places her squarely in lockstep with ultraconservatives, and far to the right of the center she claims to inhabit."

Steve Abbott, Ms. Collins's chief of staff, countered that the senator takes her responsibilities to advise and consent very seriously, but has no litmus test for judicial confirmations.

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said he believes that public attitudes toward the court are "at a tipping point." He said that the cumulative impact of the court's decisions will make it easier to make the case that "you have a court radically to the right of the American people."

Ms. Lake said she could envision an argument aimed at women in the presidential campaign — "that there's a pattern of decisions out here that are out of touch with women's lives, from pay equity to personal decision-making on abortions," she said. "It could be very powerful."

In the meantime, the activist and fund-raising networks are beginning to hum.

"I had to make a very difficult decision," Bush said at a brief meeting with reporters after visiting wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand. But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe."

Bush's commutation wiped out Libby's 30-month prison sentence, but left intact his criminal conviction, a $250,000 fine, and the two years of probation Libby must serve. With some Republicans calling for a full pardon and many Democrats condemning Bush's action, the president said he does not regret making the controversial decision.

"I made a judgment, a considered judgment, that I believe was the right decision to make in this case," the president said. "And I stand by it."

While the commutation continued to generate heated debate yesterday, it also served as a reminder that presidents from both parties have made controversial decisions to grant clemency. Conservatives defending the Libby commutation point to President Clinton's 11th-hour pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to Rich, who faced prison time for tax evasion; his former wife, Denise, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid.

Senator Clinton, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a stinging rebuke of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. Leniency for Libby "sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," she said in a statement issued Monday.

Clinton, however, is continuing to deal with the fallout of her husband's decision to pardon a Tennessee couple who were represented by her brother, Anthony Rodham, who has said he talked to President Clinton about the pardons.

A US Bankruptcy Court in Nashville is slated next week to hear arguments that Rodham should pay more than $100,000 to the couple's estate; at issue is whether Rodham received the money as salary or as a loan that must be repaid. It is possible that Anthony Rodham could be called to testify about the matter, reviving questions about the role of Hillary and Bill Clinton in the pardon.

Lawyers for both sides in the case said they are in negotiations this week that could lead to a settlement.

Another of Senator Clinton's brothers, Hugh Rodham, represented two clients who received a pardon and a sentence commutation from President Clinton.

Her brothers' involvement in cases related to pardons and commutations her husband issued was an embarrassment to Senator Clinton during her first Senate bid and could resurface as she seeks the Democratic presidential nomination. She has denied playing a role in the clemency decisions.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign, said there is no comparison between the Clinton pardons and Bush's grant of clemency to Libby. "What sets this incident apart," he said, "is the administration politicizing national security in an effort to intimidate its critics."

Libby, a White House insider and chief proponent of the Iraq invasion, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury and authorities as they tried to determine who leaked the name of a CIA operative -- part of a White House effort to undercut criticism of Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq.

After a federal judge sentenced him, Libby asked to remain free on bail while his case is on appeal. On Monday, a federal appellate court rejected that request, but Bush's commutation spared Libby any time behind bars.

At a press briefing yesterday, reporters asked White House spokesman Tony Snow whether Cheney -- who calls Libby a friend and who has enormous influence within the White House -- had pressed for Bush to commute Libby's sentence.

"I don't have direct knowledge," Snow said. "But on the other hand, the president did consult with most senior officials, and I'm sure that everybody had an opportunity to share their views."

A Justice Department spokesman said the Libby commutation is the only instance in which the president did not rely on a review from the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Bush issued 113 pardons but just three commutations of sentence before the Libby action, according to Justice Department officials.

Snow said Bush did not ask for a review of the case because, "It's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances."

Bush has issued far fewer pardons and commutations than Clinton to date, although presidents tend to grant clemencies in bunches in their waning days in office. President George H. W. Bush, George Bush's father, granted 74 pardons and three sentence commutations during his four-year term, while President Clinton granted 396 pardons, 61 sentence commutations, and two remissions of fines during his two terms in office, according to federal records.

Both issued a number of controversial pardons: Besides pardoning Rich, the fugitive financier, Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, who was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, while the elder Bush pardoned his former secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, of charges related to the Iran-contra affair.

Margaret Love, the Justice Department's pardon attorney under both the elder Bush and Clinton, said that the current President Bush has used his clemency power sparingly. Of the more than 5,500 commutation requests Bush has received, Love said, he has denied 4,108 of them, left more than 1,000 cases pending, and granted just four cases -- including Libby's.

Similarly, Bush has received 1,399 pardon requests, denying 1,022 and granting 113.

Though she is "agnostic" about the merits of Libby's case, Love said she represents a number of individuals seeking clemency and hopes the Libby action is a positive sign.

"I would hope that this is a harbinger of greater use of the power by this president," Love said. "He has not been very eager to use it for ordinary people. A lot of people have applied and a lot of people are waiting and a lot of people are serving excessive sentences."

Chicago police are investigating whether three elderly patients, including two dead and the other in a coma, at the University of Chicago Medical Center were intentionally given insulin overdoses, according to media reports Wednesday.

Suspicions were raised after extremely high levels of insulin was found in a comatose hospital patient less than three weeks after a similar case.

"Right now we have not been able to determine criminal intent," said Chicago Police Department spokeswoman Monique Bond. "It's very early in the investigation."

On the other hand, the hospital spokesman John Easton said, "We haven't necessarily tied it to anyone. We don't know if it's medical error or product integrity or defective test results." "We just don't know yet."

All three patients were elderly women being treated in the same wing of the Hyde Park hospital, all were stricken between May 7 and June 5, and none had been prescribed insulin or was suffering from diabetes, Easton said.

According to experts, insulin is produced by the pancreas and controls blood sugar levels, which can cause serious complications including coma and death if they're too high or too low.

Insulin also is given as a medicine to treat diabetes and some other conditions that affect blood sugar control. A normal insulin level ranges from fewer than 10 to 50 micro international units per micro-liter.

The test found that two of the victims had insulin levels "thousands of times higher than normal levels," -- over 2,600. The third was not tested for insulin levels but was hypoglycemic at the time of her death, officials said.

Easton said the hospital has strengthened the security of its insulin storage procedures and increased oversight of how insulin is administered to patients, but that no staffs have been reassigned.

Doctors were alerted to the problem on June 6 when they first saw a high-insulin test result, Easton said. Test results for a second victim were seen on June 14. The hospital notified police after a June 22 staff "root cause" meeting at which internal investigators could not explain the deaths, Easton said.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified, Easton said, in case there were problems with the insulin itself.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Plexus shares between January 25, 2006 and July 27, 2006, you have certain rights, and have until August 24, 2007, to move for Lead Plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.