Facebook will try to get a New York man's claim for majority ownership of the website thrown out of court, attorneys for the social networking site said Tuesday.

A complaint by Paul Ceglia of Wellsville claims that a 7-year-old contract he signed with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for software development entitles him to 84 percent of the company.

"No one's ever said it's not his signature or it's a fake contract," Ceglia attorney Terrence Connors said during a federal court hearing in Buffalo.

Connors said the two men met when Zuckerberg, then a Harvard University freshman, responded to an ad Ceglia had posted on Craigslist looking for someone to develop software for a street-mapping database he was creating.

Zuckerberg offered to take on Ceglia's project for $1,000, Connors said, and then told Ceglia about a project of his own, a kind of online yearbook for Harvard students that he wanted to expand.

Ceglia said he gave Zuckerberg another $1,000 to continue work on Zuckerberg's "The Face Book," with the condition that Ceglia would own a 50 percent interest in the software and business if it expanded. The percentage grew to 84 percent based on a clause that added a percentage point for each day the project went past its Jan. 1, 2004, due date.

Zuckerberg's undertaking "at that time was a fledgling project," Connors said. "Who knew it would turn into what it has turned into today."

Facebook recently celebrated its 500 millionth user, Connors said.

Angry creditors have thrown plans for an Aug. 4 auction of the Texas Rangers into jeopardy, saying they don't like the bidding procedures and arguing that the lease for the team's ballpark should be severed from the sale.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge D. Michael Lynn on Monday granted a motion to seal the creditors' request to reconsider the bidding procedures that are heavily controlled by Major League Baseball. Lynn approved the procedures last week after making some changes, including delaying the auction for two weeks to give potential buyers more time to secure financing.

Attorneys for Major League Baseball said the creditors' motion filed last week was rehashing arguments already rejected by the judge, including claims that the bidding process would prevent a fair and competitive sale.

Lynn set a Tuesday hearing to consider the objections and possibly rule on a separate lawsuit, filed by creditor JP Morgan Chase Bank, seeking to remove the Rangers Ballpark lease from the sale.

JP Morgan contends the team's parent company, Hicks Sports Group, transferred the lease to the team just before the bankruptcy filing without the bank's approval, as required in its loan agreement. The bank contends that the ballpark lease is not the team's property.

A former University of Kansas athletics official has admitted in court that he knew other school officials were involved in a lucrative ticket-scalping racket but concealed the crime and didn't alert authorities.

Former assistant director of ticket operations Jason Jeffries pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court in Wichita to one count of misprision of a felony. He remains free on his own recognizance and was due back in court for sentencing Sept. 29.

The university has accused Jeffries and five other former employees of scheming to sell at least $1 million in basketball and football tickets to brokers.

Jeffries' attorney said outside the courtroom that Jeffries has accepted his responsibility and has nothing to hide.

A judge was poised to decide whether the government and some fellow judges were right when they said a 70-year-old former civil rights lawyer convicted in a terrorism case received too much leniency when she was sentenced to just over two years in prison.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl was to resentence attorney Lynne Stewart on Thursday after considering the comments of appeals court judges who said he should review the role of terrorism in her case and consider if she lied when she testified at her trial.

Stewart, facing up to 30 years in prison, was sentenced to two years and four months after her conviction on charges that she let blind Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman communicate with a man who relayed messages to senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization.

Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence for conspiracies to blow up New York City landmarks and assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Stewart represented him at his 1995 trial.

Stewart was sentenced in 2006 but was permitted to remain free until the appeals court ruled last November.

Initially, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a resentencing that did not seem to pressure Koeltl to boost the length of the sentence considerably. But it revised its decision a month later, saying it had "serious doubts" whether her sentence was reasonable.

The appeals court said Koeltl might have erred if he decided the terrorism enhancement should not be applied because of Stewart's personal characteristics.

Federal appeals court judges in New York may limit the amount of raw footage that a filmmaker must turn over from his documentary about a legal dispute between Chevron and Ecuadoreans over oil contamination.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday after lawyers for filmmaker Joseph Berlinger appealed a judge's order requiring the materials to be provided to Chevron.

The judges showed little sympathy for Berlinger's claims that he should not have to turn over any raw footage.

The judges say they could order that the outtakes be limited to materials essential to Chevron's effort to prove it is being unfairly treated by the courts in Ecuador.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television, saying it is unconstitutionally vague and threatens speech "at the heart of the First Amendment."

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan threw out the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy, which said that profanity referring to sex or excrement is always indecent.

"By prohibiting all `patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what `patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive," the court wrote.

"To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment," it added.

The court said the FCC might be able to craft a policy that does not violate the First Amendment.

It cited several examples of chilled speech, including a Vermont station's refusal to air a political debate because one local politician previously had used expletives on the air and a Moosic, Pa., station's decision to no longer provide live coverage of news events unless they affect matters of public safety or convenience.

Rebuffed twice by the courts, the Obama administration is taking another crack at a moratorium on deep-water drilling, stressing new evidence of safety concerns and no longer basing the moratorium on water depth. But those who challenge the latest ban question whether it complies with a judge's ruling tossing out the first one.

The new order does not appear to deviate much from the original moratorium, as it still targets deep-water drilling operators but defines them in a different way.

Last week, a federal appeals court rejected the government's effort to restore its initial offshore deep-water drilling moratorium, which was issued following the catastrophic Gulf oil spill in April. The moratorium was first blocked last month by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman.

The Justice Department said Monday it will file a motion with the U.S. District Court seeking a dismissal of that case, because the old moratorium is no longer operative, making the challenge moot. The department also will ask the appeals court to set aside Feldman's order of last month.

Carl Rosenblum, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who sued to block the moratorium, said they are reviewing the new moratorium and "we have substantial concerns about its consistency with Judge Feldman's order." He wouldn't elaborate or say if they planned to challenge it in court.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he decided to put in place a new moratorium because of "evidence that grows every day of the industry's inability in the deep water to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill and to operate safely."