Divorce is never a fun situation to tackle - however for many people it ends up being a somewhat painless process, from a legal standpoint. When it comes to emotions, obviously that’s another story - and some say celebrities who divorce have it worst of all.

According to an ABC News article, celeb divorces are the ugliest of the ugly. Not only do these people have to deal with the emotional pain and stress caused by divorce, but because of their fat wallets, the legal battles can be especially trying.

When these relationships include one celebrity and one non-famous person, sometimes that is the worst case scenario because the non-famous spouse might become more emotional or vindictive - wanting more assets or alimony than they would if the media weren’t involved and covering the couple’s every move.

Because of the natural human instinct to not want your personal life spread all over the news, often celebrities are willing to settle things quickly and pay more money - just to have the situation out of their lives.

Some of the most expensive celebrity divorces on record are:

• Rupert and Anna Murdoch ($1.7B)
• Craig and Wendy McCaw ($460M)
• Robert and Sheila Johnson ($400M)
• Michael and Juanita Jordan ($168M)
• Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving ($100M)

Paul Kelleher took the time and trouble to clean up his mother’s affairs after she died of cancer at the age of 52.  She left behind no estate to speak of, so the task was more one of notification and clean-up than actual administration.  But according to TPM Muckraker, Kelleher got a bit of a surprise when he called Bank of America–the bank representative breezily asked him how he planned to take care of his mother’s balance.

Of course, Kelleher wasn’t obligated to pay his mother’s outstanding balance; her estate would have been liable, if she’d had one, but heirs are generally not liable for outstanding debts of the deceased.  And, of course, Bank of America knows that…but how many people on the street are sure enough of it to respond, as Kelleher reportedly did, “…you should feel free to just go through the standard probate procedure. I’m certainly not legally obligated to pay for her.”?

Kelleher, fortunately, had enough understanding of the law to make that statement–and to stand strong in the face of the representative’s apparent dismay that he wasn’t going to “help out” his mother.

This is just one of many examples that demonstrate the willingness of collection representatives–both from primary creditors and from collection agencies or debt purchasers–to say whatever seems likely to be most effective in separating you from your money…whether or not you’re legally obligated to pay a debt.  Make sure that you understand your rights and obligations before entering into an agreement with a creditor or collection agency.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested this morning on federal corruption charges.

The complaint generally alleged that the two had conspired to defraud the people of Illinois of their honest services, and contained a second count specifically alleging that Blagojevich and Harris had attempted to exchange government business and other benefits for the firing of Chicago Tribune writers who had been critical of Blagojevich.

The complaint was supported by a 76-page affidavit from FBI Agent Daniel W. Cain, outlining evidence obtained through, among other things, recording of conversations at the Friends of Blagojevich offices in Chicago.

For many, the most shocking aspect of the allegations was the revelation that Blagojevich had allegedly been planning to “sell” the appointment to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.   In conversations related in the affidavit, Blagojevich is alleged to have mentioned having his wife appointed to paid corporate board positions, garnering a lucrative non-profit position for himself, and obtaining promises for campaign funds in exchange for an appointment to the vacant Senate seat.

Blagojevich also reportedly considered the potential benefits of appointing himself to fill the vacancy, including the resources that would be available to him if he were to be indicted.  For a man concerned about indictment, Blagojevich appears to have been remarkably unconcerned about the possibility of wiretapping or a close associate offering testimony against him.

If convicted and sentenced to prison, Blagojevich will be the fourth Illinois governor in recent years to serve jail time.

The battle over the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 raged on for months in Florida, and quickly spread to other states using the breathalyzer device.  Hundreds of cases were stalled or dismissed while courts in different jurisdictions reached conflicting conclusions about the defendant’s right to obtain the breathalyzer machine’s source code, and the corporation that developed the Intoxilyzer made it clear that the source code would not be divulged regardless of the outcome.  In Florida, the state legislature stepped in to alter the state’s DUI statute to specifically state that the defendant had no right to review the source code.

Now, more than two years later, a Tucson judge has thrownTucson judge has thrown out breath test results in another 69 cases–bringing the recent total in Arizona to more than 300.  This time, the machine in question is the Intoxilyzer 8000, the new and improved product that manufacturers and prosecutors alike hoped would put an end to the struggle by eliminating alleged flaws in the system.  But the new breathalyzer seems to come with its own set of inconsistencies and possibilities for error.

While the company’s reluctance to divulge its trade secrets in public courtrooms across the country is understandable and prosecutors claim that their hands are tied by that refusal, the bottom line remains what it was three years ago when defense attorneys first began to gain momentum with these requests and always will be:  a defendant is entitled to examine the evidence against him, and if the evidence isn’t available for examination, it shouldn’t be introduced.  Fortunately, many judges have that bottom line clearly in view.

On Friday, a Philadelphia federal judge threw out a complaint that was filed by a lawyer claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) wasn’t a legal U.S. citizen. the lawyer was aiming to get Obama taken off the Nov. 4 ballot.

Phillip J. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and was actually a citizen of Indonesia and was therefore ineligible to be the president of the United States.

On Sept. 24, Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) asked the judge to dismiss his complaint, calling his allegations “ridiculous” and “patently false”. They further said the Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of any presidential candidate because he didn’t show the requisit harm to himself.

Berg had earlier requested a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22, which was denied by the same judge; however, the judge didn’t rule on the merits of this lawsuit until last week.

On Friday the judge agreed with Obama and the DNC. In a 34-page document, the judge wrote that Berg’s accusations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to award standing to any voter.

The judge further said the Berg’s claim and tactics were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion”.

Berg had argued that Obama’s Democratic nomination kept people from voting for Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), for whom Berg had backed in the primary elections.

The judge said Berg’s arguments “ventured into the unreasonable”.

The FACTS

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. He is a U.S. citizen.

In an effort to squash the rumors, the campaign posted a documents issued by the state of Hawaii on its Web site to confirm his birth on American soil.

Berg alleged that the document was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site, FactCheck.org examined the original documents and ruled it legitimate.

In addition, a Aug. 13, 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama’s birth there on Aug. 4.

Additional Resources:

–The Presidential Candidates on the Economy

–Obama Talks about Credit Card Debt and Bankruptcy

–Presidential Candidates on the Housing Crisis

–2008 Presidential Election: A Look at the Foreclosure Crisis, Taxes & Retirement

The Washington Post reported on September 12 that court documents were released showing a key witness in the Rosenberg trials gave a different statement in front of the grand jury than she did at the trial.  The testimony helped send Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair with her husband, Julius, in 1953.

Ruth Greenglass, who was married to Ethel’s brother, David, testified that she had been recruited by Julius to spy for the Russians.  The contradictions in her testimony suggest that it was Ruth’s notes that were passed to the Soviets and not the Rosenberg’s.  In recent years, David recanted his original testimony, and the recently opened transcripts show that Ruth’s statement changed from what she said at the trial to what she said in front of the grand jury.  Ruth was never tried and her husband served 10 years in prison.

A strange tale of international intrigue and mystery was published yesterday in the New York Times—but the intrigue comes from obscure international child custody laws, and the mystery from a New York man who was totally clueluess about how to apply them to his situation.

The story involves the adopted child of Eric Hyett and Joshua Glazer, who were married in one of the first same-sex marriage ceremonies in Massachusetts.  Their child, Jedidiah Hyett-Glazer, now 2, was born to a surrogate mother, and lived with the men until their split sometime last year.  A joint custody arrangement was ordered, with one man keeping the boy during the week, the other during the weekend.

However, Hyett failed to show up to return the child to Glazer after an extended stay, and later revealed over the phone that he was in Israel with the child and would not return.  Hyett said that he had read the law, and claimed that his action was at worst a first-degree custodial interference, a crime for which he could not be extradited.  He also claimed sanctuary in Israel with the child as per the Hague Convention, a treaty that governs international adoption.

However, Hyett should have consulted a divorce lawyer.  Not only was he wrong in claiming a provision of the Hague Convention—an Israeli family court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction—but he was wrong that his custodial interference would not cause him to lose custody.  Glazer was given custody and Hyett now awaits trial in Manhattan, facing up to four years if convicted.

It’s a strange story, but one that reminds you how important a divorce lawyer can be in making sure you’re on the right side of the law, in tricky matters of child custody and especially when dealing with international matters.

Facing the threat of lawsuits in the wake of the D.C. v. Heller, several suburbs of Chicago and several towns in West Virginia are moving to eliminate, amend or otherwise clarify their own laws on buying and possessing guns within city limits.

The AP reports that Morton Grove and Wilmette, both suburbs of Chicago, Illinois, repealed their bans on handguns as a response to the NRA, who immediately filed lawsuits following the Supreme Court decision. Wilmette was not actually sued, as it had stopped enforcing its ban over a decade ago.

In West Virginia, the Charleston Daily Mail reports, Charleston officials have received pressure from the state’s gun rights group, West Virginia Citizens Defense, to rescind its restrictions on handgun purchases.  Charleston limits purchases of handguns to one per month, and bans guns on city property, as a result of a deadly shooting spree that occurred in 1993.  However, the mayor and city officials expressed no interest in revisiting these laws.

Martinsburg, West Virginia, however, has made the move to clarify its gun laws, expressing that guns are allowed on city streets, just not in municipal buildings.

Sometimes you come across stories that leave you asking this question above. Here are two such examples:

• Wisconsin Law Allows Parents To Pray Rather Than Call A Doctor; and

• Library Aide Fired For Reporting Child Pornography Suspect.

A Fort Collins, CO couple has a drug problem.

Specifically, their marijuana plants that were seized by the Fort Collins police were returned dead earlier this month, according to denverpost.com.

Here’s the background: James and Lisa Masters had more than 36 marijana plants at their home. Police confiscated them in a raid and sent the couple to jail, where they spent a little more than a day. Apparently, the couple’s plans to grow, use and sell marijuana for medical purposes were thwarted by one small problem: they were not on the state’s medical marijuana registry.

The Masters have claimed that they were unable to afford a license to use and sell the pot before the police raid, but since their stint behind bars have secured a license with help from friends. Since their return home, the police have given the plants back. But, of course, they’re no longer living.

The controversy here comes over the issue of whether this is a medical marijuana case or not. If it is, the police should not have harmed the pot plants in any way, and could be found at fault in court. If it’s not considered a medical marijuana case–which is possible, since the couple didn’t join the registry until after their arrest–the police will likely be found to have no liability.

A judge has already dismissed the original charges against the Masters, ruling that the police search of their home and seizure of the pot plants were illegal. The issue of the dead pot, though, remains to be solved.