Another co-founder, Stephen Lawrence, previously pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy. In a plea deal, Mr. Lefebvre agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and testify if necessary. He also agreed to be partly responsible for the $100 million the government is seeking in restitution.

Although the conspiracy charge carries a potential prison term of up to five years, cooperation in the case is likely to greatly reduce any potential sentence.

The government has said that nearly all of the $5.1 billion in transactions processed in the first half of 2006 involved online gambling, and most of the revenue was generated by American customers.

"The laws authorizing NSLs, as well as specific rules set down by the FBI and by me, established strict policies for how they would be issued and carried out....

I was upset when I learned this, as was Director Mueller.  To say that I am concerned about what has been revealed in this report would be an enormous understatement.

Failure to adequately protect information privacy is a failure to do our jobs. And although I believe the kinds of errors we saw here were due to questionable judgment or lack or attention, not intentional wrongdoing, I want to be very clear: there is no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are going to make things right as quickly as possible.

I have told the Director that I will not accept the problems identified in the report, and I will not be satisfied until procedures and policies that should have been followed are being followed, to the letter."

Read the full speech here.

DOJ spinmeisters are already trying to smooth things over, claiming that it was unclear whether Gonzales had actually read the reports about legal violations and civil liberties abuses. All the abuses reported to Gonzales were, however, grave enough to also be submitted to an independent intelligence oversight board designed to safeguard civil liberties. A story today in the Washington Post quoted DOJ spokesman Brian Roehrkasse as saying that just because a violation is reported to the oversight board "does not mean that a USA Patriot violation exists or that an individual's civil liberties have been abused."

But Caroline Fredrickson, the Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office condemned Gonzales' actions today in a statement:

"Congress has been hoodwinked by the Attorney General and it's time for consequences.  From the US Attorney scandal to warrantless wiretapping, this administration has misled the American people time and again.  We know now that Mr. Gonzales provided false testimony in order to build a case for reauthorization of the Patriot Act.  It is now apparent that Congress and the public simply cannot afford to take anything this administration says about the war on terror at face value.

No government should have these broad powers in the first place and it has become painfully obvious that our government cannot be trusted to police itself.  This administration seems to think that the end justifies the means and when it comes to the means, it's anything goes.  Without Mr. Gonzales' false testimony, the Patriot Act may not have been authorized in its current form.  Now, more than ever, is the time to reopen and re-examine the Patriot Act."

Congress may also decide it's time to re-examine the possibility that Gonzales shut down a DOJ probe into the administration's NSA warrantless wiretapping program because he knew it would target his actions as former White House counsel. Murray Waas of the National Journal first reported the story here.

As expected, Democratic lawmakers are outraged. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York), the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, quickly called for Gonzales' resignation, along with the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales' statements to Congress and whether the AG and other officials broke the law with the NSA wiretapping program.

"Attorney General Gonzales has shown an apparent reckless disregard for the rule of law and a fundamental lack of respect for the oversight responsibilities of Congress," Nadler said. "The man entrusted with enforcing our nation's laws must also abide by them, and Mr. Gonzales has apparently failed in that duty. Providing false, misleading or inaccurate statements to Congress is a serious crime, and the man who may have committed those acts cannot be trusted to investigate himself."

A former Alaska lawmaker was convicted Monday of taking thousands of dollars from a corrections company consultant in exchange for his help in the Legislature.

"I'm devastated," former state Rep. Tom Anderson said after the federal jury announced its bribery verdict.

Anderson, 39, was accused of conspiring to take money he thought was coming from a private prison firm, Cornell Industries Inc.

The money was supplied by the FBI through an informant working for Cornell who secretly recorded his conversations with Anderson and a coconspirator, former municipal lobbyist Bill Bobrick.

Anderson was one of four current or former state lawmakers facing federal bribery indictments. The other three face trial this fall for charges related to Anchorage-based oil field services company VECO Corp.

"I think the prosecution has criminalized being a legislator over the last year," Anderson said. "I think I fell victim to that."

Minutes after Anderson's conviction, Gov. Sarah Palin signed into law an ethics reform package for state officials was signed into law.

Palin said the law will help re-establish the public's trust, noting Anderson's case revealed a broader problem with public officials.

"I believe it could be a precursor for what's to come, and it's unfortunate," she said.

Anderson's family, including his wife, state Sen. Lesil McGuire, were not present for the verdict.

Anderson said they couldn't get to the downtown Anchorage courthouse in time after it was announced the jury had reached a verdict.

Judge John Sedwick ordered Anderson to surrender his passport and scheduled sentencing for Oct. 2.

Anderson was arrested Dec. 7 and charged with seven felonies, including conspiracy, bribery, money laundering and interfering with commerce, a charge connected to a demand for payments. He faces a maximum penalty of 115 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine.

Department of Justice officials in Washington said Anderson was held accountable for his crimes.

Anderson "corrupted his elected office when he took official actions in exchange for bribery payments," Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said. "His illegal conduct impaired the integrity of the oath he took to represent citizens of the state of Alaska."

Bobrick pleaded guilty in May to bribing Anderson. He agreed to testify against Anderson in exchange for prosecutors' request for lenience at sentencing.

Anderson was accused of accepting nearly $26,000 he thought was coming from Cornell through Frank Prewitt, a former corrections department commissioner and an FBI informant was a $150,000-per-year consultant for Cornell.

The Houston-based company operated halfway houses in Alaska and hoped to build a private prison and a juvenile psychiatric treatment center in Alaska.

The defense argued that Anderson backed Cornell without being on the take and that Prewitt wore a wire to bag a legislator and deflect investigators from his legal problems.

Prosecutors contend Bobrick and Anderson trolled for cash in conversations with Prewitt, using a phony Web-based newsletter as a front for Cornell to funnel payments to Anderson.

Anderson, finishing his first term as a Republican legislator from east Anchorage, was strapped for cash, prosecutors said, as he romanced McGuire, who was then a state representative.

He owed child support payments and was looking for a payoff of about $3,000 per month when the Legislature was not in session.

The complaint alleges that, between January 25, 2006 and July 27, 2006, Plexus failed to disclose that the company’s position in the defense market was weakening and that operations in the United Kingdom would have to be reorganized. Because of this information, Plexus lacked a “reasonable basis” for the positive statements it made during that period about the company’s future growth.

According to the complaint, Plexus “shocked investors” when, on July 27, 2006, the company lowered its earnings outlook for the year, based in part on limited revenue growth. The plaintiff alleges that this news caused shares of the company’s stock to fall $10.71 per share, or approximately 32 percent, to close at $22.89 per share.

The complaint alleges that, in a conference call following the July 26 quarterly report, Dean Foate, president, CEO and chairman of the board of directors, said that fourth quarter revenue outlook was softer than had been previously implied.
Foate and F. Gordon Bitter – chief financial officers – and John Nussbaum, who also served as chairman of the board, are all named individually as defendants.

The complaint alleges that because Foate, Bitter and Nussbaum controlled the contents of the company’s reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the public, they had the opportunity to correct the statements. According to the plaintiff, the defendants knew that the statements made by Plexus were “materially false and misleading.” 
The suit also accuses corporate officers and board members of insider trading, alleging that company officers were motivated to misrepresent revenue growth to allow company insiders to “sell 664,666 shares of their personally-held Plexus common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $26.3 million.”

The suit claims that Foate, Bitter and Nussbaum all benefited from selling stock during this period, as well as executive officers Michael Verstegen, Joseph Kronser, Thomas Czajkowski, David Clark, Paul Ehlers, David Rust, Joseph Kaufman, Simon Painter and George Setton and board members Ralf Boer, David Drury and Thomas Prosser.

The second lawsuit, filed June 29 by the Alan M. Ozell Trust, reasserts the accusation that Plexus withheld relevant information that caused the stock price to drop, but does not accuse anyone in the company of insider trading.

Both lawsuits request compensation for all damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as costs and expenses.
Plexus issued a statement on June 25 acknowledging that a class action complaint had been filed against the company, though Plexus claimed it had not yet received a copy of the complaint.

“Plexus believes that all of its public statements were correct and properly made; it thus intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation,” according to the statement.

Angelo Ninivaggi, vice president, general counsel and secretary for Plexus, did not return a call requesting an updated statement.
The law firms of Ademi & O’Reilly, LLP and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP are representing the plaintiffs in both cases. The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The court did not rule on the spying program's legality. Instead, the decision found that the American Civil Liberties Union, academics, lawyers and journalists who brought the case did not have standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.

The decision vacates a ruling in the case last August by a U.S. District Court judge in Detroit, who found that the administration's program to monitor private communications violated the Bill of Rights and a 1970s federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Friday's action in the 6th Circuit means that the principal remaining legal challenge to the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program is a group of cases pending before a U.S. District Court judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California.

The primary issue before that appeals court, differing somewhat from that in

the Michigan case, is whether the administration may claim that a privilege covering state secrets precludes the litigation.
In January, after Democrats gained control of Congress, the administration abruptly shifted its position. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the surveillance program would start to be overseen by a court established to hear FISA cases.

But administration officials have not described critical details of the new approach, including whether a separate warrant is required for each instance of monitoring. Aides to Bush also have asserted that the president still retains the authority to conduct surveillance without court permission.

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, a Democratic appointee, disagreed in a dissenting opinion in which he concluded the plaintiffs were entitled to sue because they felt a need to alter their communications after the program was disclosed. Gilman also wrote that the case was not moot because "the president maintains that he has the authority to 'opt out' of the FISA framework at any time," and he agreed with the lower court judge that the program violates federal law.

Administration officials lauded the 6th Circuit's decision. Deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto called the lower court finding that the program was unconstitutional "wrongly decided." Fratto said the appellate court "properly determined that the plaintiffs had failed to show their claims were entitled to review in federal court."

The ACLU's legal director, Steven Shapiro, said, "As a result of today's decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance."

Shapiro said the ACLU was examining its legal options, including the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The suit likely will not affect tuition rates this fall, but if it's successful, it could lead to a rise in the cost of a college education in Florida, where tuition is among the lowest in the country.
Established in 2003 with a constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters, the Board of Governors was given "exclusive power to operate, regulate, control, and manage" the overall state university system.

A state law allowing the Legislature to control tuition is therefor unconstitutional, the complaint states.

"They are violating the will of the people of Florida," Graham said during a conference call with reporters Friday morning. "(The Board of Governors) has a constitutional responsibility."

However, Senate President Ken Pruitt, R-Port St. Lucie, who, along with House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, is named as a defendant in the suit, fired back. He called it "nothing more than an attempt to get unbridled tuition increases."

"God help our students if they win," Pruitt said in a statement. "I don't think voters were trying to turn the Board of Governors into the fourth branch of government."

None of the plaintiffs sit on the policy-making board, but several are university trustees and professors.

One of them, FAU marketing professor Eric Shaw, said university resources have become increasingly stretched in recent years as student enrollment increases.

More money is needed, either from the state or students, to provide quality higher education in Florida, where low tuition has led to high faculty-to-student ratios, Shaw said.

"Classes sizes get larger, faculty teach more and that cuts into their research time," he said. "But mostly you don't have as much contact with students."

Although board members would not comment on the lawsuit Friday, Shaw said he expects them to join the plaintiffs.

The board will take up the issue at a public meeting Tuesday at the University of Central Florida, said Bill Edmonds, board spokesman.

Crist's spokesman said the governor would need to review the lawsuit before commenting.

Meanwhile, Graham said the 20-page lawsuit, filed in Leon County Circuit Court in Tallahassee, has been in the works for a while but was pushed into court now because of the recent tuition increase freeze, which has universities scrambling to tighten their budgets.

"The legislature not only provides taxpayer money but decides what the student contribution will be," he said. "It does it in a way that it makes it almost impossible to have effective management of the university system."

"We take these things very seriously," said FBI spokesman Bill Carter, who added, "we have no specific and credible information about a credible threat to Goldman Sachs other than these letters."

The letters were postmarked late June from New York and were handwritten in red ink on loose-leaf paper.

"We are working closely with the law enforcement authorities, who tell us they don't believe the threat to be very credible," Goldman Sachs said in a statement today. "We have a broad range of security measures in place to counter all likely threats and we're monitoring the situation closely."

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette received the letter Monday, said Bobby Wells, the newspaper's administrative assistant, and the FBI and local police department have since picked up the letter.

The Star-Ledger reported that it received one of the letters, postmarked June 27. The letter was addressed to the news department and was turned over to the FBI, according to the newspaper.

Goldman is a powerhouse in investment banking, with $37 billion in revenue last year and a profit of $9.5 billion. It hands out the biggest paychecks on Wall Street, averaging $623,418 per employee last year with individual rainmakers raking in up to $50 million, according to U.S. regulatory filings.

Goldman Sachs sent the following internal memo to its employees:

"The firm is aware that a number of local newspapers in a few places in the U.S. have received anonymous letters threatening the firm. We take any threat to the safety of our people and our business very seriously. The Office of Global Security has consulted the FBI and other relevant authorities. Authorities have informed us that they believe the threat to be of low credibility. Nevertheless, they have mounted an active investigation to try to determine the source of the letters. We have a broad range of security measures in place to counter all likely threats and we continue to monitor this situation closely. We do not view this situation as a cause for concern."

A source at Goldman who asked not to be named said that the firm didn't think the letters were credible and that officials were satisfied with the many security provisions in place, especially in New York.

But the American Civil Liberties Union, along with groups and attorneys based in Michigan, filed a lawsuit in Detroit in January 2006 saying that the government's surveillance program was unconstitutional and interfered with their jobs.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last August. The U.S. Justice Department then appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court.

Kary Moss, head of the Michigan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said "it's a really unfortunate decision."

She said that one of the reasons the plaintiffs had difficulty proving they were being adversely affected was that the government has kept information about the wiretapping program a secret. Moss said they are considering appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, one of the co-plaintiffs, said: "It's a shame that the court overturned the decision... what the executive branch was doing was unconstitutional."