Jon Koppenhaver, known as “War Machine” from Spike TV's reality series “The Ultimate Fighter,” pleaded guilty Thursday in Superior Court to a felony assault charge.
The professional cage-fighter choked a Las Vegas man unconscious and hit him in the face outside San Diego's Undisputed fitness and training center early Sept. 2.

Koppenhaver also faced a battery charge, but that was dismissed as part of a plea agreement reached during the preliminary hearing Thursday afternoon.
The victim, Darren Zatkow, testified during the hearing that he was visiting San Diego with his then-girlfriend when he was assaulted outside the fitness club after a night of drinks on the town.

Zatkow said he made a joke as he walked out with friends, calling a group of men standing outside the club without shirts “tough guys” while holding his hands up to his shoulders with palms open before he was surrounded by the men. “I cracked a joke and I got hit for it,” Zatkow said.

Zatkow said he was grabbed from behind in a carotid choke and dragged a few feet by one of the men. Zatkow said he did not see who grabbed him.

Zatkow, who practices martial arts but has never competed in tournaments, said he became unconscious 10 seconds after he was choked and came to moments later. Friends of Zatkow's who testified said he was punched in the face while he lay unconscious on the ground.

San Diego Police Detective Fernando Ramirez said a Las Vegas doctor who saw Zatkow days after the assault determined that the facial blow caused four fractures to his left eye socket. The injuries could cause temporary or permanent nerve damage, Ramirez said. The extent of the injury is not yet known because Zatkow is still recovering, he said.

Koppenhaver, 26, of Simi Valley, is skilled in mixed martial arts, according to his profile on the Ultimate Fighting Championship Web site, and also is a resident trainer for San Diego's Undisputed club.

Last week, he won with a technical knockout against Jared Rollins in the third round of Spike TV's Ultimate Fighter Finale held in Nevada.

Judge Frank Brown said the change in plea could result in a misdemeanor punishment. Zatkow told the court he thought a reduced punishment was OK because he believed a felony conviction would destroy Koppenhaver's career.

“I'm not interested in destroying somebody's life,” Zatkow said, noting that fighting should stay in the ring.

In only the third time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has publicly released a ruling, it turned back a request to reveal documents that would shed light on the government's program to spy on the communications of terror suspects without first obtaining warrants.

FISC's ruling argued that its role as a unique court dealing with national security issues necessarily meant its case documents and decisions would be classified, and that US constitutional provisions did not require it to release case materials.

It also said that even first deleting sensitive material from the papers sought by the American Civil Liberties Union -- secret documents related to the legality of the surveillance programs -- risked accidentally damaging the country's security.

"That possibility itself may be a price too high to pay," the court said in rejecting the ACLU request.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, called the decision disappointing.

"A federal court's interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret from the American public," Jaffer said.

"The Bush administration is seeking expanded surveillance powers from Congress because of the rulings issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year. Under this decision, those rulings may remain secret forever."

In August the ACLU sought access to FISC rulings and orders made earlier this year that were cited in a new law, the Protect America Act, which expanded the government's powers to spy on the international communications of US citizens without first seeking a warrant.

The civil liberties advocates argued that the public had a right to know the content of those rulings and orders as they were used by the government to widen the parameters of its surveillance powers.

In the decision signed by FISC judge John Bates, the court said that, even if the court first removed justifiably secret materials to oblige the ACLU request, it still "might err by releasing information that in fact should remain classified (and) damage to national security would result."

Another federal court has ruled against the auto industry in its attempt to block regulation of greenhouse gas pollution from cars.

The ruling today from U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii in California supports a September decision by a federal judge in Vermont.

Both courts upheld the rights of states to use the federal Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases from cars.

Steven Hinchman is a lawyer for the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened in the Vermont case.

Hinchman points out that both the California and Vermont cases followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that affirmed the government's power to regulate global warming pollution.

This is strike three for the automakers. They've now lost in this year alone three different federal cases trying to block regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. When the best scientists in the whole world are saying this is an urgent crisis, and when the governments are responding, it's time for the automakers to quit litigating and start innovating and producing clean cars.

More than a dozen states have followed California's lead and have adopted tough new emissions standards.

Both Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell and Governor Jim Douglas praised the ruling.

They said the California decision upholds the right of states to require aggressive pollution control measures for vehicles.

Ellie Rommel was employed as John Duncan’s secretary when he was a partner at the law firm of Verrill Dana. She said she reported what she thought was questionable behavior by Duncan.

Duncan has since been fired from the firm after nearly 30 years.

Rommel told News 8 that she struggled over whether she should tell others what she knew.

"If I had to do it again, I know I would do it,” she said. “But I never dreamt it would be so difficult, so painful."

According to Rommel, she was wrongfully terminated at Verrill Dana after blowing the whistle on Duncan. She said she now plans to file a lawsuit against the firm.

Her attorney also is filing a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission.

A representative of Verrill Dana told News 8 that the firm appreciates Rommel “for bringing the situation to their attention” but added that the facts clearly show that Rommel was not fired.

Moriarty set aside 27.5 percent, or $15.8 million, for plaintiffs' legal fees, as well as an additional $2.2 million for plaintiff expenses.

Sprint Nextel, based in Reston, Va., but with operational headquarters in Overland Park, will pay $10 million of the settlement, with insurers paying the rest. The company has denied any wrongdoing, saying it settled the case to avoid continued legal costs.

Jay Eisenhofer, an attorney representing Dallas-based Carlson Capital LP, one of the lead plaintiffs, said he welcomed the outcome, especially as the case would have been heard in Sprint's hometown.

"The court recognized that Sprint's board did not live up to its fiduciary duties in the way it valued the company's tracking stocks to the detriment of common shareholders," Eisenhofer said.

The case came about after what was then Sprint Corp. decided to combine the two stocks that tracked the fortunes of its wireless and traditional wireline business divisions. Those stocks were divided in 1998 to reflect that the wireless division was just starting to grow and invest in wireless infrastructure while the business overseeing local and long-distance calls generated the bulk of the company's revenue.

By 2004, with most telecommunications companies selling bundles of wireless and land line services, Sprint officials decided to recombine the stocks, exchanging each of the wireless stock shares for half a share of the wireline stock.

Shareholders erupted, with half a dozen filing lawsuits claiming the company had shortchanged the value of the wireless stock and that company officials had manipulated the wireline business to the detriment of the wireless business.

The plaintiffs' attorneys hired experts who estimated the losses to shareholders ranged from $1.3 billion to $3.4 billion.

The settlement covers shareholders whose wireless shares were converted to combined shares on April 23, 2004, or who sold their wireless shares before that date and "were damaged thereby."