The locked-out NFL players don't want to go back to collective bargaining with the league. They have now made a move to allow their former union boss to be present if court-supervised talks take place between the two sides.

Attorneys for the NFL and the players held a conference call Friday to discuss mediation with U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who is currently deciding whether to lift the lockout.

League spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed the call took place and said Nelson wanted details to remain private. Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer for the players, declined to comment.

The most notable development Friday was the formal addition of DeMaurice Smith as an attorney for the players. Smith is the executive director of the NFL Players Association, which is now officially a trade association and not a union. Lawyers who practice in a different state must file for approval through the court.

NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis confirmed that the move allows Smith to participate in any mediation sessions that might take place under Nelson's supervision.

After a hearing Wednesday on the players' request for an injunction to stop the lockout, Nelson urged both sides to resume talks toward a new labor pact. Negotiations broke down last month.

Both sides expressed a willingness to talk again after the hearing, but the NFL wants to resume negotiations before a federal mediator in Washington while the players prefer to remain in Nelson's court.

Republican state Sen. Jane Orie's lawyer wants her public corruption retrial barred because of double jeopardy and wants the Pennsylvania Superior Court to recuse the trial judge from presiding over it.

Orie is scheduled to be retried Monday on conflict of interest and other public corruption charges alleging that she used her legislative staff to do campaign work for herself and another sister, State Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin.

The appeal filed Friday by Orie's attorney, William Costopoulos, is expected to delay Monday's retrial although the appeals court did not immediately issue such an order. In essence, Costopoulos claims that prosecutors were aware of possible problems with the documents Allegheny County Judge Jeffrey Manning found to be forged days before bringing them to the attention of the judge.

A federal appeals court is set to consider a lawsuit that claims that a former Forsyth County sheriff used his office to harass and intimidate them after they supported a referendum that would have reduced the office's powers.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday is set to consider the lawsuit by Danny Bennett and Danny Reid, who claim they were targeted by ex-Sheriff Dennis Lee Hendrix after they supported a 1998 proposal to create a countywide police force.

A jury sided with the two, awarding Bennett $3.6 million and Reid $3.1 million after Hendrix posted flyers that called the two men "convicted criminals" who terrorized the county.

Hendrix appealed the jury's decision. He says the two men don't have enough evidence to back up their claims.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ordered Health Net Inc., a major health maintenance organization, to cover more than $180 million in claims by consumers, health care providers and creditors in Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon told The Advocate that Louisiana will get the smallest portion of the payout.

"We have about $12 million coming to us to policyholders, providers and general creditors, meaning companies who sold them supplies or that rented them space," Donelon said.

Donelon said the unanimous ruling, issued Friday, will reimburse all of AmCare Louisiana HMO's members, providers, and creditors for any losses caused by Health Net's conduct.

Health Net sold health plans in the three states to AmCareco Inc. in 1999. In 2002, the troubled health plans were placed under state supervision. Each of the state's insurance departments sued AmCareco and Health Net, alleging fraud, negligence, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

In 2005, a state district court jury awarded the Texas plaintiffs around $100 million in damages. In 2005, a state judge in Baton Rouge issued similar verdicts against Health Net and awarded $30 million to the Louisiana and Oklahoma plaintiffs.

A lawsuit challenging a law that lets the United States eavesdrop on overseas communications more widely and with less judicial oversight than in the past was reinstated Monday by a federal appeals court that said new rules regarding surveillance had put lawyers, journalists and human rights groups in a "lose-lose situation."

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it took no position on the merits of the lawsuit brought by those in jobs that require them to speak with people overseas, saying only that the plaintiffs had legal standing to bring it against the latest version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in Manhattan had sided with the government in a 2009 ruling, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue since none of them could show they were subject to the surveillance. He said Americans' fears that their conversations would be monitored and their rights violated were "purely subjective."

Attorneys, journalists and human rights groups whose work might require speaking to possible surveillance targets had brought the lawsuit on constitutional grounds, saying new government procedures for eavesdropping on international communications forced them to take costly and burdensome steps to protect the confidentiality of their overseas communications.

In a lengthy written ruling, the 2nd Circuit said the plaintiffs had standing to sue in part because they had established that they had a reasonable fear of injury from the surveillance and had incurred costs to avoid it.

Having declared that Wisconsin's divisive union law isn't really a law yet, a judge was set to return to one of the underlying questions dogging the measure — whether Republicans violated the state's open meetings law during the frenzied run-up to passage.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's administration reluctantly suspended efforts to enact the law Thursday after Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi unexpectedly declared the measure hadn't been properly published. The move marked another round in a messy legal fight over the law, which requires most public workers to pay more for their benefits and strips away most of their collective bargaining rights.

Democrats and unions have filed three lawsuits challenging the law. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne's action has taken center stage so far; he alleges Republicans didn't provide the proper public notice when it convened a special committee to amend the plan before its passage.

Sumi earlier issued an emergency restraining order blocking the secretary of state from publishing of the bill while she considered the case, but Republicans persuaded another state office to publish it, raising questions of whether the law was in effect. Sumi settled that unequivocally with her declaration early Thursday morning: No.

The judge is scheduled to take more testimony on the open meetings allegations on Friday. It's unclear when Ozanne may rule, but any decision almost certainly will trigger a storm of appeals that could stretch to the state Supreme Court.