Workers who filed a class-action lawsuit against a Kansas slaughterhouse for unpaid wages and overtime have asked a federal judge to bar Creekstone Farms Premium Beef from discovering their immigration status during the litigation.

The employees have asked U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren for a protective order prohibiting the Arkansas City meatpacker from receiving from the named plaintiffs — or any other workers who opt into the lawsuit — any information pertaining to their present names or any other names they may have used.

They also seek to avoid having to disclose their place of birth, Social Security number and any present or prior addresses. The plaintiff's motion also seeks an order protecting the workers from having to turn over to Creekstone Farms any tax returns or any other tax forms filed under any of their identities or having to disclose the dates and times of entry into the United States. They also want to avoid turning over all identification documents likely to lead to the discovery of their immigration status.

Their attorney, Mark Kistler, told The Associated Press Tuesday that the courts already have decided that these types of information which could lead to discovery of immigration status should be protected from discovery during a lawsuit.

New Jersey's Supreme Court has upheld the censure of a retired Superior Court judge.

Steven Perskie was disciplined in March for not recusing himself in a timely fashion from a case involving his former campaign treasurer. A state Supreme Court committee also found Perskie was not forthcoming in his remarks to a Senate committee about the incident when he was facing re-appointment.

Today's ruling found Perskie shouldn't have rejected a request during a 2006 case that he recuse himself. He later recused himself for different reasons.

The court also found that Perskie didn't intentionally mislead the Senate committee when he answered questions about the incident.

Perskie served on the Superior Court in Atlantic County and retired in January 2010. He also served as a state legislator.

A federal court Friday night denied an emergency motion by defense lawyers to keep prison officials in Missouri from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with a psychotropic drug.

In a one-page ruling, judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a request by Jared Lee Loughner's attorneys for daily reports about his condition at a federal prison facility in Springfield, Mo.

The judges said their denial is without prejudice to the defense seeking appropriate relief in the district court. The 9th Circuit had previously scheduled an Aug. 30 hearing in San Francisco on an appeal by Loughner's lawyers over forced medication. It wasn't immediately clear if that hearing will still be held.

Calls to lead Loughner attorney Judy Clarke for comment Friday night weren't immediately returned.

Federal prosecutors said in a filing earlier Friday that Loughner should remain medicated because he may be a danger to himself and his mental and physical condition was rapidly deteriorating.

Loughner's attorneys questioned Thursday whether the forced medication violates an earlier order by the 9th Circuit that forbid prison officials from involuntarily medicating Loughner as the court mulls an appeal on his behalf. They also said their client has been on 24-hour suicide watch.

U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke wrote in his filing Friday that "despite being under suicide watch, Loughner's unmedicated behavior is endangering him and that no measure short of medication will protect him from himself more than temporarily because they do not address the mental state which underlies his self-destructive actions."

A former corporate executive officer of a New York-based automotive-chemical company was convicted Tuesday in a multimillion-dollar investor fraud scheme that enabled him to buy expensive jewelry and take private jets.

A jury in Manhattan state Supreme Court found Cleveland lawyer James Margulies guilty of charges including grand larceny and scheme to defraud. He faces up to 25 years on the top two counts, which could run consecutively. Bail was set at $1.5 million.

Ira London, an attorney for Margulies, said he planned to file "a very vigorous appeal."

"The jury has spoken. I believe they have convicted an innocent man," he said.

While serving as the company's finance chief — and briefly as CEO — of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., from 2004 to 2008, Margulies illegally issued millions of shares of stock to friends and relatives, inflating the share price by making the company look more profitable than it was, prosecutors said.

A teachers' pension fund in Ohio and a church were among the victims of the scheme, prosecutors said.

Margulies personally reaped more than $7 million, spending it on lavish luxuries such as a $350,000 diamond ring for his wife from jeweler Harry Winston, prosecutors said.

He also paid more than a million dollars on the mortgage of his first home, bought a second home and spent $500,000 on a vacation club membership, prosecutors said.

Margulies was charged in the scheme in 2010 along with John D. Mazzuto, who pleaded guilty Jan. 14 to his role in issuing fraudulent shares of stock.

Authorities say a South Florida paralegal stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Fort Lauderdale law firm.

Miami-Dade officials on Tuesday charged 53-year-old Brenda Wilcott-Kelly with more than 80 felonies, including grand theft and forging documents. Records show she's also took money from a lawyer who was on his deathbed.

Employees of Hermelee & Geffin were in court Tuesday as Judge Dennis Murphy set Wilcott-Kelly's bond at $116,000.

Defense attorney Morgan Cronin said his client is innocent.

According to the arrest affidavit, Wilcott-Kelly took $82,472 from the firm to pay off her husband's credit cards. She is also accused of stealing $31,050 from lawyer Steven A. Schultz, while he was in the hospital. Schultz leased space from the firm.

A conservative group fighting campaign finance rules in Montana says in a recent filing that it agrees disclosure laws can apply to corporate speech, but Western Tradition Partnership argues it isn't subject to current disclosure laws because its attack mailers fall outside the definition of "electioneering."

The Montana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for September in the state's challenge to a district court decision that tossed out the outright ban on corporate political spending.

Western Tradition Partnership first filed the lawsuit last year piggybacking on the high-profile Citizen's United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The group aims to undo Montana's century-old restriction on corporate political spending.

Western Tradition is separately fighting a decision that it failed to report campaign expenditures. The group argues its activities are not intended to influence elections.

In a brief filed earlier this month with the Supreme Court on the main case fighting the ban corporate campaign spending, WTP made it clear it believes campaign finance regulation is OK.

"If the State is truly concerned with accountability, the state has other means at its disposal, such as disclosure laws, to make sure that people know who is speaking," Western Tradition argued in the brief. "It is inappropriate, and indeed, unconstitutional, to completely outlaw corporate political speech."