A pilot who posted videos on YouTube that were critical of security at San Francisco International Airport is now the subject of an investigation, the pilot's attorney says.

The pilot placed several videos on YouTube in late November or early December that showed how ground crew members can enter secure areas by swiping security cards and without undergoing further screening.

The Transportation Security Administration is looking into whether the pilot revealed sensitive information, his attorney, Don Werno of the Santa Ana-based law firm Werno and Associates, said Friday.

The TSA wouldn't answer questions but said in a statement it is responding to the situation and is confident in the security at San Francisco International Airport.

"As to access control at SFO, TSA is confident in the tools the airport has implemented and reminds passengers there are security measures in place that are both seen and unseen."

The pilot remains employed with a major airline, but he has withdrawn from a program that trains flight crew to help prevent hijackings after authorities confiscated his federally issued firearm, Werno said. He declined to release the pilot's name, citing concerns about the man's job.

In the footage, the pilot says that pilots undergo intense screening, but then have access to ax-like weapons that are stored in the cockpit in case of emergencies.

A federal judge in Ohio has ordered a woman to start serving a 25-year prison sentence interrupted after she fled the country following her corporate fraud conviction.

A jury convicted 62-year-old Rebecca Parrett in 2008 for her role in a $1.9 billion health care financing fraud at National Century Financial Enterprises. She was arrested in Mexico in October.

U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley told Parrett she broke her word by fleeing and cost the government thousands of hours of investigative time.

Parrett told Marbley she went to Mexico intending to die there but changed her mind after seeing a doctor who helped her recover from several illnesses.

She says she may have made bad decisions but is innocent of the corporate fraud charges.

The Indiana Supreme Court has determined a judge wrongly considered the condition of the state's mental health system in rejecting an insanity defense for a man convicted of stabbing his grandmother to death in front of family members.

In a 3-2 decision Wednesday, the justices said it was inappropriate for the judge to consider whether Gregory Galloway may have eventually been released if he was sent to a mental health facility.

Instead, he was found guilty but mentally ill and was sentenced to 50 years in prison. If he had been found insane, Galloway would have been sent to a mental hospital instead of prison.

"It is not for the judicial branch to decide that a legally insane defendant should be convicted and sentenced to prison because of the condition of the state's mental health system," Justice Frank Sullivan wrote in the 23-page ruling. "While we sympathize with the difficulty of the trial court's decision, we cannot sustain it."

Consumers who were willing to plunk down two dollars for information on how to make money quickly or gain U.S. government grants, wound up paying far more than they expected, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court.

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S., a consumer group accuses companies of stealing money from consumers by billing debit and credit cards for products they did not want. According to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission — a consumer protection agency — a variety of websites billed consumer's credit and debit cards hefty upfront fees and recurring monthly fees without the cardholder's consent.

The allegations in the suit have not been proven in court.

A total of 51 companies, 10 corporations and 10 individuals have been named in the legal action. According to the suit, one individual was behind the dizzying array of websites, shell corporations and companies. Nine others played various roles in the operation.

The statement of claim, filed in Nevada, said consumers were induced to pay a one-time fee of $1.99 to gain access to information on grant and wealth schemes. But then they were billed a fee of $129.95, and monthly fees of $59.95.

The parent company, I Works, came onto the radar at Visa and MasterCard when consumers began demanding millions of dollars in chargebacks, telling the credit card companies they had not approved charges that were showing up on their bills.

A McAllen doctor and his attorney wife face arraignment Jan. 4 in Portland, Ore., after being charged with secretly sending more than $1.8 million to Iran in funds meant for a children's charity.

Dr. Hossein Lahiji, 47, and Najmeh Vahid, 35, were arrested Tuesday by the FBI in San Antonio on fraud and conspiracy charges related to violating the U.S. trade embargo on Iran, their homeland, the San Antonio Express-News reported Wednesday. The two were released on unsecured bonds.

The pair deny the allegations, linked to funds since 2001, and say the federal indictment announced last week in Portland is inaccurate.

Lahiji, a urologist, told the Express-News that the indictment places them in certain geographic areas when they were elsewhere.

"There are a lot of inconsistencies in (the indictment), and we hope to prove our innocence," said Vahid, a lawyer whose practice is based in San Antonio.

The charity, Child Foundation, and its leader, Mehrdad Yasrebi, struck a plea deal with prosecutors in Oregon to avoid formal indictment. Yasrebi admitted he funneled money that was meant for food and other assistance to a cousin and to a bank controlled by the Iranian government.

The Texas couple is accused of working through Iranian corporations and banks in Switzerland and Dubai. The indictment charges the couple with conspiring to defraud the government and conspiring to launder money by purporting to transfer charitable donations to Iran, while actually keeping control of the money. If convicted, they face up to 20 years in prison.

Ernst & Young LLP may be sued for fraud as early as today by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for allegedly helping Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. mislead investors, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Cuomo will be sworn in as governor on Jan. 1. The suit would relate to Ernst & Young’s audits of Lehman financial statements aimed at downplaying its liabilities, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the case. The fraud suit would be brought under the state’s Martin Act, said the person, adding that a settlement is possible.

Richard Bamberger, a spokesman for Cuomo’s office, declined to comment. Charles Perkins, a spokesman for Ernst & Young, declined to comment. The Wall Street Journal said earlier today a lawsuit might be filed this week.

Lehman, once the fourth-largest investment bank, failed in September 2008 because of risky real estate bets and too much debt including Repo 105 trades, which it tried to hide from investors, according to bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas’s report. Valukas, in the report, said Ernst & Young could be accused of “professional malpractice” for its role as auditor.

Repo 105 transactions are a form of short-term financing that Valukas said Lehman used to move as much as $50 billion off its balance sheet temporarily to show investors it wasn’t carrying too much debt.