They also say the bugs infested their luggage, which led to further problems in their apartment when they returned home. Mrs Bluming claims the trauma was made worse as she is recovering from cancer and her immune system is still weak.

Their lawyer, Michael Weinstein, said they were forced to fumigate their home and throw away clothing, bedding, luggage and personal effects. Mr Weinstein added: "People associate bed bugs with more of a lower end class of hotel. Clearly, that is not the case here. The Mandarin is as premier and luxurious as any hotel could make themselves out to be."

Jill Kluge, communications director for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, said: "We can confirm a regrettable, but isolated, incident of infestation occurred in May 2006 within one guest room at our London property.

"On discovery, a full investigation was carried out and the problem fully rectified. There have been no subsequent incidents. The matter has been referred to our insurers.

"Mandarin Oriental's policy is to operate with the highest standards of conduct, with stringent hygiene systems and processes in place at all of our hotels to safeguard the health and safety of our guests."

The hotel chain is accused of fraud, negligence, recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional distress deceptive trade practice and nuisance.

A federal judge says a fired CIA agent can continue with a lawsuit challenging his dismissal from the agency.

The one-time covert agent -- identified only as Doe -- contends he was fired for refusing to alter intelligence the Bush administration wanted to cite in making its case for going to war with Iraq.

President Bush justified the war on grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found.

The judge ruled the former agent has the right to argue that his dismissal was based on allegedly false information placed in his file.

The plaintiff claims he was the target of two sham investigations launched by the CIA prior before his firing in September 2004.

An Iranian national has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit visa fraud before the Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

Shahram Shajirat, a citizen of Iran, was indicted in January 2004 along with his wife and co-conspirator, Soraya Marghi, in connection with a visas-for-sale ring operated out of the U.S. Consulate in Dubai, United Arab Emirates in the summer of 1999. Through this scheme, at least 25 Iranian men, women and children purchased U.S. non-immigrant visas from Shajirat and Marghi for travel to the United States without undergoing the required security protocols. As part of his plea of guilty, Shajirat will cooperate fully with U.S. authorities to identify each of the visa recipients who illegally received non-immigrant visas.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Judge Urbina set a sentencing date for April 12, 2007.

Marghi, who has dual Canadian and Iranian citizenship, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit visa fraud in connection with the same illegal scheme before Judge Urbina on October 20, 2005. Marghi has cooperated with U.S. authorities.

The case is being prosecuted by Matthew C. Solomon and William J. Corcoran of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, headed by Acting Chief Edward C. Nucci. The case is being investigated by the Visa Fraud Branch of the Diplomatic Security Service of the U.S. Department of State.

Two historians who lost a plagiarism case against "The Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown launched an appeal on Tuesday to have the verdict overturned.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which they say Brown copied, were at London's High Court to hear the opening of the appeal.

Their lawyer, Jonathan Rayner James, will argue that the original judge was wrong to dismiss the idea of a "central theme" in the historians' research which he says was used extensively in six chapters of "The Da Vinci Code."

"The ... judge 'rejected' the central theme because, inter alia, it was not the substantial part of HBHG (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail)," he said in a printed summary of his argument to be presented in court.

"This approach is incorrect; it does not have to be the substantial part of HBHG ...

"Was there enough of an expenditure of skill and labor to warrant copyright protection? The appellants submit that there was."

Brown, who was called as a witness during the original case last year, is not expected to be present for the appeal.

Judge Peter Smith ruled in April that the central themes were too general or abstract to be protected by copyright.

Brown said at the time that novelists must be allowed to draw from historical works without fear of being sued.

"The Da Vinci Code" is one of the most successful novels of all time, selling more than 40 million copies worldwide and being turned into a major Hollywood movie. It is published in Britain by Random House, as is "The Holy Blood."

The appeal is likely to focus on legal argument, and lack the original case's colorful and often heated debate about the Merovingian monarchy, the knights Templar and Jesus' bloodline.

Both "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" raise the possibility that Jesus had a child by Mary Magdalene, that she fled to France after the Crucifixion and that Christ's bloodline survives to this day.

They also associate Magdalene with the Holy Grail.

As in the case last year, the appeal will also focus on Brown's wife Blythe, who emerged as a key contributor to "The Da Vinci Code" through research and ideas.

"In this case, Mrs. Brown knew that she was exclusively using HBHG for that subject matter comprising the Langdon/Teabing lectures," Rayner James said, referring to the six chapters around which the case centers.

"She took a 'short cut' through the research and investigation and simply lifted the material from HBHG."

The appeal is expected to wind up on Friday. The judgment is likely to be delivered in written form at a later date.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the widow of a man who died in a Texas jail from pursuing a $5 million jury verdict.

The court without comment declined to consider the appeal of Jessie Dorado, whose husband died in an El Paso jail after being denied medication to control seizures. Eduardo Miranda, a Mexican national, was a physician who was arrested in 1997 on a two-year-old drunk driving charge. He died 74 hours later.

Miranda lived legally in El Paso, but practiced medicine in Juarez, Mexico.

His family invoked a federal civil rights law authorizing suits against state and local government officials who violate a person's constitutional rights. A jury awarded Dorado $5 million after deciding that the jail's doctor knew of Miranda's medical needs and failed to minister to him.

A Texas appeals court threw out the verdict. The court said the jail doctor had not acted with deliberate indifference. The appeals court also said Miranda's lawyers presented little evidence that the jail doctor set policy at the facility, a threshold plaintiffs often must cross in civil rights lawsuits against government officials.

Bryan Wagner, the private investigator involved in the Hewlett-Packard corporate spying scandal pleaded guilty Friday to federal charges of conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. Wagner was accused of using used the social security number of a targeted reporter to obtain the reporter's telephone records, which Wagner provided to other co-conspirators. The charges carry a possible five-year sentence for conspiracy and a mandatory minimum of two years imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft charge. Under Wagner's plea agreement, he will cooperate with prosecutors in future investigations in exchange for a lighter sentence.

In November, Wagner pleaded not guilty to state charges of using false or fraudulent pretenses to obtain confidential information from a public utility, unauthorized access to computer data, identity theft, and conspiracy to commit those crimes stemming from his role in the corporate spying scandal. The scandal prompted Congress to pass anti-pretexting legislation in 2006, criminalizing obtaining phone records through fraud or lying.