Nine women and three men, none of them black, have been seated as the jury in the O.J. Simpson robbery and kidnapping trial. Trial is expected to begin Monday. Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass said jurors will not be sequestered.

The fourth day of juror questioning moved at a fast clip Thursday, and by mid-afternoon the top 40 finalists were chosen. The 12 jurors and six alternates were picked just before 8 p.m.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges after an alleged sports memorabilia hold-up last year at the Palace Station Casino.

One of Stewart's attorneys has his own legal problems. Former Louisiana Sen. Charles Jones is charged in Louisiana with filing false federal tax returns in 2001 and 2003 and trying to duck taxes on more than $750,000 in legal fees from July 1995 to December 2003.

Jones pleaded not guilty in February. Trial is set for March 2009 in Monroe, La.

On Thursday, prospective jurors were peppered with questions ranging from topics such as religion and one juror's alcoholism to Simpson's previous criminal and civil cases.

Many said they disagreed with the 1995 verdict that acquitted Simpson of the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman. But they said they could be fair in this case.

More than one admitted to not wanting to be there.

"I don't really want to be here, due to babysitting problems," said one potential juror, a nurse's assistant. "Being a single mom, and being here ... I don't know if I'll get paid for doing this."

A former police officer turned salesman acknowledged he answered a questionnaire with fiery language to get himself removed from the case.

"I wanted to scare you so that I wouldn't have to be here," he said. "I was hoping (you) would think, 'This guy is crazy.'"

He changed course somewhat during questioning.

"I'm a firm believer in the system, and (Simpson) won. He is a free man until he comes here."

Judge Glass prodded him to "look deep inside yourself and say ... 'Yes, I understand how the system works and I can put it aside and give both sides a fair evaluation in this case - or I can't.'"

The answer: "Unfortunately, I can."

One juror was excused for his remark, "If someone got away with something like that ... you would keep yourself clean, you wouldn't come back up here and pretty much commit another crime."

Also Thursday, Glass denied a motion from the media to release the filled-out questionnaires jurors were given. Glass said she would release the unanswered questions after the jury is seated.

Three women say their girls' night out ended with a cable TV station setting them up to look like they were trolling for younger men, and then broadcasting the action as "The Great Cougar Hunt."

Christine Torres and Charnette Hildreth say they were celebrating Tammi Tary's birthday at the Chapter Eight dance club when an employee of defendant G4 Media asked if he could videotape them. The women say they refused.

Later, they say, two young men sat down at their table and began talking with them. The women say the men turned out to be paid props whom G4 used to portray them falsely as "cougars," or "sexually cunning 35+ females on the hunt for a much younger energetic male."

At the end of the evening, the women say, G4 employees approached them again, asking them to sign a release consenting to G4's use of their voices and likenesses. The women say they refused.

Eight months later, the women say, they discovered "The Great Cougar Hunt" on G4's cable station. The video portrayed their birthday party as a group of "older women" looking for younger men at a "world famous cougar hot spot."

According to the complaint, the video describes "cougars" as the "easiest, most ravenous" prey for younger men.

The women say they were "not attempting to meet or 'hunt' younger men." They say they do not even date younger men.

The plaintiffs say the defendants have lined their own pockets with a video that has exposed them to "contempt and ridicule and has caused others to shun or avoid (them)."

G4 originally was devoted to gaming programming, but now bills its content as "general male-interest programming."

The women demand punitive damages of at least $1 million. They are represented by Neville Johnson in Superior Court.

A Houston law firm cannot file 34 more lawsuits against Enron after the high-flying company's financial collapse, the 5th Circuit ruled.

Fleming & Associates has represented hundreds of plaintiffs against the failed energy company, but Judge Prado agreed with the district court that the statute of limitations on the latest group of cases had expired.

The lawsuits would have covered 1,200 clients and would have alleged state law claims of fraud, negligence and civil conspiracy. Prado ruled that the district court did not violate "any notions of federalism" by determining that the state court would dismiss the claims as untimely.

"The district court is intimately involved in the many facets of litigation surrounding the Enron collapse," Prado wrote. "Further, federal courts often consider issues involving a state statute of limitations."

J.K. Rowling vanquished the forces of darkness Monday when a federaljudge permanently enjoined RDR Books from publishing "The Harry PotterLexicon," a guidebook to Rowling's best-selling series. U.S. DistrictJudge Robert Patterson Jr. blocked also ordered RDR to pay $6,750 instatutory damages.

Steven Jan Vander Ark, a librarian andHarry Potter fan, thus cannot publish his guide to Rowling's series,for which he said there was a considerable demand. Warner Bros., whichmade the Harry Potter movies, joined Rowling in suing for copyrightviolations.

The ruling came 5 months after a 4-day trial,during which Rowling described the "Lexicon" as "wholesale theft of 17years of my hard work."

The next day at trial, Vander Ark sobbed on the stand, clearly upset that he had annoyed Rowling.

Judge Patterson found that RDR Books "failed to establish its affirmative defense of fair use."

Europe's highest court overturned a decision by the EU governments to freeze the assets of a Saudi businessman and a Sweden-based charity because of their alleged ties to terrorist groups.

The ruling allows judicial review of a regulation by the United Nations Security Council requiring member states to freeze the assets of individuals and organizations with ties to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida or the Taliban.

But the European Court of Justice said the Security Council should not have deprived Yasin Al-Qadi and the Al Barakaat International Foundation of their property without giving them a chance to defend themselves in court.

Judge Lucy Billings of the New York State Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday that challenged the decision made by New York Governor David Paterson to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. The lawsuit, brought by conservative Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defense Fund [advocacy website], asked the court to declare that Governor Paterson's May 14, 2008 Executive Directive recognizing such marriages "contravenes New York law" and asked the court to "permanently enjoin the Directive's enforcement, because it exceeds the Governor's lawful authority." In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Billings wrote

Governor Paterson's Executive Directive dated May 14, 2008, requiring state agencies to recognize same sex marriages legally solemnized in other jurisdictions is consistent with New York's common law, statutory law, and constitutional separation of powers regarding recognition of marriages legally solemnized outside New York. ... The court therefore denies the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the amended petition and grants respondents' motions to dismiss this proceeding.

Governor Paterson's Executive Directive notes a February decision by an intermediate New York appellate court in Martinez v. County of Monroe  holding that legal same-sex marriages performed outside the state are entitled to recognition in New York. The memo was dated one day before the California Supreme Court overturned a state ban on same-sex marriage in In re Marriage Cases.