Mr. Li, 35, of El Monte, California, was originally indicted by a federal grand jury on June 15, 2004. He was charged with possession and use of counterfeit access devices as well as possession of access-making equipment. Mr. Li pleaded guilty to possessing over fifteen counterfeit credit cards. Mr. Li also admitted to using counterfeit credit cards to fraudulently purchase merchandise in retail stores in the Bay Area that resulted in a total loss of between $1,000,000 and $2,500,000.

Ms. Tan, 36, of Richmond, California, was indicted by the same grand jury with the same violations of federal law and pled guilty to the same violation as Mr. Li. Ms. Tan admitted that her actions in using counterfeit credit cards resulted in loss of more than $5,000.

"These sentences embody the United States Attorney’s Office ongoing commitment to work closely with the United States Secret Service to investigate and prosecute credit card fraud," U.S. Attorney Scott N. Schools stated. "The possession and use of counterfeit credit cards is a scourge on our modern society. Counterfeit credit cards threaten the integrity of our banking system and result in higher costs to businesses and consumers. Those who choose to engage in such fraud will be prosecuted, and if convicted, face lengthy jail time. The Department of Justice commends the dedication of the Secret Service in bringing Mr. Li and Ms. Tan to account for their crimes."

In an interview, Iglesias said he was given no reason for his firing when he was notified Dec. 7. But he later found out from a Senate staff member that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had said Iglesias and six of the other seven were fired for performance reasons.

And in Iglesias' case, a document released by the Justice Department referred to him as an "absentee landlord."

But Iglesias said his absences from his civilian job were taken to fulfill his military obligations as a reservist. As a drilling reservist, he said, he is required to do 36 days of duty each year, and probably did a little extra, 40 to 45 days total for each year that he served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico.

Each time before he left for military duty, he notified the Washington, D.C., Justice Department office, which is the clearinghouse for such matters, he said. And his Navy Reserve information was on his résumé when he was hired for the U.S. Attorney's job in October 2001.

Iglesias confirmed that he has authorized an investigation into whether his firing might constitute a violation of USERRA. A spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel confirmed that the office is investigating the case but declined to provide further details. The office, which often investigates employment and re-employment rights cases on behalf of military reservists, is an independent agency and is not connected to the Justice Department.

If his firing is even partly related to his reserve duty, it could be a violation of the law.

Iglesias said he has had a number of Guard or Reserve members working for him and had six who were mobilized since Sept. 11, 2001. As part of his reserve duties, he also has conducted training for virtually every drilling Navy reserve attorney.

The subject of USERRA is "something near and dear to my heart," he said. He is scheduled to conduct training soon with Navy Reserve attorneys about how the Justice Department enforces USERRA with private employers.

If his status as a reservist did, in fact, have anything to do with his firing as U.S. Attorney, he said, "it would be a violation of federal law — and I'd be horribly disappointed with the Justice Department tasked with enforcing it, that they would not honor the letter of the law with one of their own people.

"There are so many ironies in this scandal," Iglesias said. "I've authorized the OSC to look into whether there is an issue. There may be. The stories keep changing from the Department of Justice."

Performance evaluations and statements by officials indicated Iglesias' job performance was excellent, according to congressional testimony.

In a joint statement when four of the fired attorneys were subpoenaed to testify before the House and Senate judiciary committees March 6, the attorneys, who are political appointees, said they were aware that they served at the pleasure of the president and could be removed for any or no reason.

Iglesias' situation is more complicated than the USERRA issue. He testified about phone calls he received before the November 2006 midterm elections from Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., and as a result felt pressured related to a corruption investigation involving Democrats in New Mexico.

Later, he testified, "I just started to put the dots together" in connection with his firing.

As such, the OSC investigation into Iglesias' firing is moving on three parallel tracks: the Justice Department's violation of Iglesias' rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act and USERRA, and the government's violation of the Hatch Act, which restricts partisan political activity by government employees.

"Time is running out for tax filers to take advantage of the special telephone excise tax refund and other benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit," IRS spokesman Dan Boone said in prepared comments.

"If you don't claim it, you don't get it. That's money down the drain for thousands of Tennesseans."

In addition, many taxpayers also overlook free services available to them, such as free tax help and the Free File program.

Still others lose out by not filing a return at all. Even if a taxpayer does not owe tax and is not required by law to file a return, he may miss out on a refund or tax credit.

Here are some refunds, credits or services Boone says are frequently overlooked:

Telephone Excise Tax Refund - This is a one-time refund of long-distance excise taxes available on 2006 income tax returns. The refund applies to charges billed from March 2003 through July 2006.

The IRS offers a standard refund amount of $30 to $60, or taxpayers can calculate the actual tax paid. Even if the taxpayer does not normally have to file a return, Form 1040EZ-T can be used to request this refund.

Businesses and exempt organizations can also request it. Taxpayers can visit IRS.gov for more information on this special payment.

"Tennesseans have already left more than $12 million on the table by failing to request this special refund," Boone said.

IRS Free File - Nearly 20 companies are offering free electronic filing to taxpayers whose 2006 adjusted gross income was $52,000 or less. That means 1.9 million Tennesseans can take advantage of the IRS-sponsored Free File program.

"Free File users get all the benefits of IRS E-file: a faster refund, a virtually error-free return, and confirmation that the IRS received your tax return," Boone said. A link to Free File offerings is located on the IRS.gov homepage.

Earned Income Tax Credit - Earned income of less than $39,000 in 2006 may qualify a taxpayer to claim the earned income tax credit.

This credit could be worth up to $4,536.

When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.

To qualify, taxpayers must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if they did not earn enough money to be obligated to file a return. An electronic special "EITC Assistant" is available on IRS.gov to help taxpayers determine whether they are eligible.

Taxpayers can access more information on this credit by visiting IRS.gov and clicking on "1040 Central."

"More than half-a-million Tennesseans claimed EITC last year, but the IRS estimates that another 20 to 25 percent could be claiming it," Boone said.

Unclaimed Refunds - Refunds totaling approximately $30.8 million are waiting for about 27,600 Tennesseans who failed to file a federal income tax return for 2003.

In order to collect the money, a return for 2003 must be filed no later than April 17.

The IRS estimates that half of those who could claim refunds would receive more than $600. In some cases, individuals had taxes withheld from their wages, or made payments against their taxes out of self-employed earnings, but had too little income to require filing a tax return.

Police say an unemployed suburban mother of five found a quick way to make ends meet: turning her children into panhandlers. Antoinette Jones, 37, pleaded not guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor, at an arraignment Tuesday in Yonkers, a New York City suburb. A judge issued an order that bars her from her five children, and released her without bail.

It was not immediately known where the children were placed. Police said the case was referred to Child Protective Services, but agency officials declined to comment.

Police said they discovered the panhandling when Jones' 11-year-old son was reported missing at a Pathmark supermarket Monday night.

When police arrived, Jones' 18-year-old daughter told them that her mother had made them walk several miles from their home to the supermarket, where they were told to stand outside and beg for money, police said.

The boy returned to the store several hours later; police didn't know where he had gone. The 18-year-old told police her mother frequently forced the children to beg at stores, saying they often picked up $30 to $40 at a time.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast Financial Holdings Inc.[ticker: CFHI], the parent company of Coast Bank of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of the bank’s publicly traded securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

According to the complaint, Bradenton, Fla.-based Coast Financial partnered with Construction Compliance Inc. (CCI) to lend money to borrowers who would use the money to construct homes in Southwest Florida.

The lawsuit accuses the banking company of hiding the facts about its relationship with CCI and the true risks associated with the real estate market.

Last month, Washington's State Senate passed a domestic partnership bill, but that state's governor has indicated more enthusiasm about signing it into law.