Attorneys entered not guilty pleas for Brian David Franks, 27; William Thomas Coppock, 23; and Brian Alan Anderson, 22, all of Los Angeles.

They are among five men who have been charged with recklessly causing a Nov. 24 fire that swept through 4,000 acres of Malibu canyon land. Six firefighters were hurt battling the blaze, and 50 homes and 35 other buildings were destroyed.

Dean Allen Lavorante, 19, and Eric Matthew Ullman, 18, face arraignment in February. They and Anderson are free on bail.

The five are charged with recklessly causing a fire with great bodily injury and recklessly causing fire to inhabited structures. They could face more than a decade each in prison if convicted.

Superior Court Judge Michael K. Kellogg, who works in the San Fernando Valley but lives in Malibu, took the unusual step of denying from the bench that his Malibu neighbors had pressured him.

"Nobody's putting pressure on me," he said. "No one ... has come down from Malibu and knocked on my door and said, 'Hey Judge, we know where you live!"

Kellogg scheduled a preliminary hearing for Jan. 7 to determine whether there is enough evidence to hold the three for trial.

After the hearing, defense attorneys said their clients were being scapegoated.

"The Malibu community and the political pressure by the governor and other factors," led to charges being filed, said Andrew Reed Flier, who represents Coppock.

Arson investigators said food wrappers and precut logs led them to determine the blaze started with an illegal campfire in a cave-like depression on state park land in Corral Canyon that was known as a favorite partying spot for young people.

Brenda White, 55, of Plaistow, N.H., won the $200,000 on a Massachusetts State Lottery $5 scratch ticket appropriately called "Bah Hum Bucks" during a Yankee swap party on Dec. 15 in Haverhill.

In a Yankee swap, participants have the option of either keeping a gift they choose, or swapping for a gift selected by someone who preceded them.

White swapped for the lottery ticket originally selected by Franco Sapia, 39, of Derry, N.H.

Before scratching the ticket, she promised to split any winnings with Sapia, according to a complaint Sapia filed in Essex Superior Court. She didn't, and Sapia is claiming half the jackpot in his lawsuit, saying there were several witnesses to the promise.

A judge has agreed to freeze the jackpot until the matter is resolved.

"Only this court can resolve this important question," the Justice Department wrote in its 28-page appeal, filed Wednesday. "Until it does so, investigations of corruption in the nation's capital and elsewhere will be seriously and perhaps even fatally stymied."

Jefferson's attorney, Robert P. Trout, declined comment Friday.

The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process, and the FBI should have given Jefferson a chance to argue that some of the documents involved legislative business, according to the August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The May 2006 raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, a nine-term Democrat from New Orleans. He is accused of accepting $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home.

Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa.

In its August ruling, the federal appeals court held that the raid itself was constitutional. But it ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from Jefferson's office on Capitol Hill. Still undecided is whether prosecutors can use other records it confiscated as part of their bribery case against Jefferson.

Justice Department attorneys said the ruling "fundamentally misinterprets" constitutional guarantees that allow the executive branch to investigate and prosecute corruption in Congress.

"Although this case involves a search of a Capitol Hill office (a concededly extraordinary event), the court's decision threatens to impede searches of Members' homes, vehicles, or briefcases," government attorneys wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

In addition to Jefferson, the Justice Department is investigating disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with Reps. John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis, both California Republicans; former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas; and former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont. A dozen people — including former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and former White House official David Safavian — have been convicted in the Abramoff probe.

In a Thursday hearing on the Jefferson case, an FBI agent testified that investigators had information about potentially shady business deals involving Jefferson going back the late 1990s. During a pretrial hearing in federal court in suburban Virginia, FBI agent Timothy Thibault said he found a bureau document from the late 1990s questioning Jefferson's business deals with a sugar company.

Rothstein suffered severe internal injuries when he skied into the wall at Snowbird in February 2003. Rothstein sued, claiming negligence, but a state District Court ruled in favor of Snowbird, citing the releases Rothstein signed.

The Supreme Court's 3-2 decision Tuesday restores Rothstein's lawsuit and clarifies state law.

"What it will do is to encourage ski resorts to be more careful in their operations," said Jesse Trentadue, a lawyer representing Rothstein.

Snowbird attorneys Gordon Strachan and Kevin Simon did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Peter Rietz, a Colorado lawyer who is special counsel to the National Ski Areas Association, said the ruling applies only to Utah resorts.

Snowbird maintained Rothstein skied off a connecting trail to an area that was marked off by rope. But the rope had a gap, which Rothstein mistook for an entrance to an open trail. The wall Rothstein hit had a light covering of snow and couldn't be seen. Rothstein survived broken ribs, a kidney injury, liver damage and a collapsed lung.

Snowbird won the earlier ruling on two releases Rothstein had signed, assuming all risks and specifically mentioning cases "including the negligence of Snowbird, its employees and agents."

But the Supreme Court decided that the releases go against a state law, which was written to protect resorts by keeping liability insurance rates affordable.

Resorts are covered by the state's Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, saying skiers assume some risks every time they swoosh down a steep mountainside or trail lined with trees.

The law is designed to keep insurance rates affordable for the resorts, not shield them from liability all together. Resorts are responsible to insure themselves non-inherent risks, the high court said.

The releases Rothstein signed for Snowbird "are contrary to the public policy of this state and are, therefore, unenforceable," the ruling said.

Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins, who cast one of the two dissenting votes, noted that nothing in the state law says ski resorts can't shield themselves from lawsuits for non-inherent risks.

"In fact, the text is silent about whether an individual may or may not sue a ski area operator on some other basis," Wilkins wrote.

Speaking from Dillon, Colo., Rietz said there are trade-offs when a skier gets a season pass.

"Part of the consideration when you get a discounted pass is you have to sign a waiver that provides some additional protection for the resort," he said. "If you don't want to release liability you can buy a day ticket."

Santo Maggio, 56, who was president of the Refco Capital Markets unit, pleaded guilty to four counts -- two counts of securities fraud, one count of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud -- at a hearing before Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis in Manhattan federal court.

Separately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a related action it had settled a civil lawsuit against Maggio.

Refco and 23 affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on October 17, 2005, a week after revealing that former Chief Executive Phillip Bennett had hidden $430 million of bad customer debt. It later liquidated its operations.

Maggio told the judge that Refco's losses were covered up.

"I participated with others to hide the true financial health of Refco," he said. "I deeply regret my conduct and the harm that it has caused."

He faces a maximum sentence of 65 years for the charges. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 9.

The plea comes a day after prosecutors, along with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed charges against Joseph Collins, a former outside lawyer for Refco. 

Berman was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

Avvo Chief Executive Mark Britton declared victory, saying he had been confident that the court would reach that decision.

"This was a case that should have never been filed. It was aimed at chilling and censoring our opinions, the opinions of consumers and even the opinions of other lawyers," said Britton, the former general counsel at Expedia who founded Avvo last year. "We are gratified. We are very happy."

There is the possibility of an appeal.

The suit, which was brought by Berman on behalf of Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur shortly after Avvo's launch last June, claimed that the attorney rating service was severely flawed since some accomplished lawyers scored lower than those with disciplinary actions.

For example, the suit noted that Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito received the same rating as an attorney in prison for conspiracy and other charges.

The suit also said that attorneys could manipulate the rankings by updating their profiles on Avvo, citing one example of a Bellevue attorney who boosted his Avvo rating by posting athletic awards on his profile page.

But Lasnik wrote Tuesday that the Avvo ratings -- which assign rankings of 1 to 10 on attorneys -- are "subjective opinions."

"To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them. To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action," Lasnik wrote.

Lasnik also questioned why Browne would use his rating as a "Super Lawyer" by Washington Law & Politics magazine as evidence against his sub-par Avvo rating, noting that the court did not want to determine if one system was better than the other.

Avvo, which has raised about $13 million from Benchmark Capital and Ignition Partners, has attracted more than 4,000 lawyers who have claimed profiles on the site. About 2,000 of those are from Washington state.

Despite the legal action, Britton said that he spent little time on the case and most of the employees stayed focused on the job at hand.

"I think the team took it for what it was worth, rather than getting worked up by it or getting distracted by it," he said.