Bernie Madoff will be spending a lot of time in prison after being sentenced to a term of 150 years for his financial crimes.  Sure, it is one of the strongest sentences for while collar crimes to date.  But, that’s what you get for several counts of securities fraud, investment advisor fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and theft…     In his 70’s now, Madoff has essentially received a life sentence in prison for conducting a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme. 

Madoff defrauded a lot of people.. including some pretty smart and financially savvy people.  So, if even so called “sophisticated investors” can become victims of this kind of fraud, how is the average person supposed to protect themselves against it? 

The FBI has a handy little test on its website:  Don’t Be Cheated - Test Your Fraud Awareness.  Check it out…. you might be surprised by the results. 

For more information about white collar crime or other criminal law matters, contact a criminal defense attorney or  white collar crime lawyer.  You can also visit LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center to learn more about the law.

LOS ANGELES — A judge on Thursday delayed a guardianship hearing for Michael Jackson’s children at the request of attorneys for the singer’s mother and his ex-wife, Deborah Rowe.

The legal documents filed on behalf of Rowe and Katherine Jackson were not accompanied by any petition for custody by Rowe.

The hearing had been scheduled for Monday. Records show attorneys for both sides asked for the hearing to be delayed until July 13.

Another hearing scheduled for Monday on who will take temporary control of Jackson’s estate will proceed.

KNBC in Los Angeles reported earlier that Rowe intends to seek custody of Jackson’s two oldest children and will seek a restraining order to keep Jackson’s father Joe away from the children.

Calls by The Associated Press to Rowe’s attorney Marta Almli were not immediately returned.

Katherine Jackson currently has temporary guardianship of the children.

Rowe is the mother of Jackson’s two oldest children, son Michael Joseph Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; daughter Paris Michael Katherine, 11.

The mother of the singer’s youngest child, son Prince Michael II, 7, has never been revealed.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles officials were holding closed-door talks about a possible event for Michael Jackson on Tuesday at a downtown arena, a person with knowledge of the situation said Thursday.

The event would take place at the Staples Center, home of the Los Angeles Lakers, said the person who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

It wasn’t immediately clear if a funeral or a public memorial was being discussed for the entertainer — or both.

All talks were preliminary, and no decisions had been made, the person said.

Another site that has also been discussed for a Jackson tribute is the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

The discussions were held as the federal Drug Enforcement Administration joining the investigation into Jackson’s death, and Jermaine Jackson said he would be “hurt” if toxicology reports showed his younger brother abused prescription drugs.

“In this business, the pressures and things that you go through, you never know what one turns to,” Jermaine Jackson said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show.

The circumstances surrounding Jackson’s death last week have become a federal issue, with the DEA asked to help police take a look at the pop star’s doctors and possible drug use. Allegations have emerged that the 50-year-old entertainer had been consuming painkillers, sedatives and antidepressants.

Asked if he would be shocked or surprised if Michael’s drug use was proven, Jermaine Jackson said, “I would be hurt.” He said he had heard about prescription drug use in the 1980s when his brother was hurt in an accident filming a commercial but did not know if drug use was a possibility more recently.

“I don’t know about these things, because I hate anything with drugs,” he said, adding that it hurts the family for people to say things about drug use “because we don’t know.”

Psychic entertainer Uri Geller, a former Jackson confidant, said he tried to keep Jackson from abusing painkillers and other prescription drugs, but others in the singer’s circle kept him supplied.

“When Michael asked for something, he got it. This was the great tragedy,” Geller said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from his suburban London home.

Jermaine Jackson said he would like Neverland Ranch to be his brother’s final resting place. A person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity told the AP that permits for a burial at Neverland could not be arranged in time.

The Los Angeles Police Department asked the DEA to help in the probe, a law enforcement official in Washington told the AP on condition of anonymity because of the investigation’s sensitivity.

While the investigation into the singer’s death deepened, passionate Michael Jackson fans spent another day in an uneasy limbo, awaiting word from the King of Pop’s camp about where and when a memorial service might be held for their hero — and if they’re even invited.

On the legal front, Jackson’s 7-year-old will was filed Wednesday in a Los Angeles court, giving his entire estate to a family trust and naming his 79-year-old mother Katherine and his three children as beneficiaries. The will also estimates the value of his estate at more than $500 million.

The will doesn’t name father Joe Jackson to any position of authority in administering the estate. Also shut out is Rowe.

The will was dated July 7, 2002. Details of the trust will not be made public.

Jackson owns a 50 percent stake in the massive Sony-ATV Music Publishing Catalog, which includes music by the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers.

___

AP writers Michael R. Blood, Noaki Schwartz and Ryan Nakashima in Los Angeles; John Rogers in Los Olivos; Michele Salcedo in Washington; Shawn Pogatchnik in London; and AP Entertainment Writer Erin Carlson in New York contributed to this story.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

HONOLULU (AP) — A state judge has blocked Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle from forcing public employees to take three unpaid days off per month.

First Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto issued a preliminary injunction Thursday. He ruled that the governor’s failure to bargain with unions denied them their constitutional rights.

The monthly furloughs were to start this month.

Three state employee unions said the plan would cut the salaries of more than 15,000 employees by about 14 percent.

Attorney General Mark Bennett told the court that Lingle has the right to furlough employees to relieve the state’s more than $730 million budget deficit over the next two years.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Sixteen-year-old Michael Martinez Jr. of Abilene was tried as an adult in the 2007 death of 48-year-old Eric McMahon.

Martinez received the maximum sentence Wednesday and will be eligible for parole in 30 years.

Martinez testified during his trial that he was drunk and had left a party when he saw the homeless man in a trash container. He said an unknown man with a gun told him to kick and throw brick pieces at the homeless man.

But his confession to police didn’t mention the man with a gun. And a witness testified that the then 15-year-old Martinez laughed as he kicked and hit McMahon.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Oh the fervor over Michael Jackson’s Last Will and Testament…    But actually, it is a pretty big legal issue.  With a will, you can specify how you want your assets to be distributed upon your death, name who you would like to act as guardian for your children, and provide for special burial instructions.  These are pretty important issues to most people.  But, if a will has not been properly prepared, or if there are allegations that someone exerted “undue influence” over you when making your will, the will may be declared invalid by a court.  In that case, state intestacy laws would govern who gets what and how much… and a court would decide who gets your kids. 

In light of this very important legal issue, take a look at the information in LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center about Last Wills and Testaments, and other estate planning matters.  Specifically, take a look at this article:  Basic Requirements for a Last Will and Testament in California.  Or, find information about the legal requirements for a valid will in your state by clicking here.

Media reports are swirling over the issue of who will get custody of Michael Jackson’s kids.  It could be a bit of a battle depending on a variety of things including what Michael Jackson’s will provides regarding guardianship of the kids, whether Michael Jackson’s mother (temporary guardian at this point) petitions the court for custody, and whether any other person(s) claim a legal right to custody of the children.  One of the issues that may impact the custody or guardianship proceedings is whether or not another person, such as Debbie Rowe (mother of Michael Jackson’s two eldest children), or the so-called unknown surrogate mother of Jackson’s youngest child, will dispute any guardian named in Jackson’s will and try to obtain custody respectively.   It can be a complicated, if not downright tricky, legal issue when children are born in, let’s say non-traditional, means.  And… unlike some tabloid reports, the person(s) named on a child’s birth certificate are not necessarily conclusively entitled to such custody.  Allow me to deconstruct: 

When a man and woman get married, conceive a child, the woman carries the pregnancy and gives birth to the child, the child is both biologically related to both the man and the woman and the woman gives birth to the baby - both “paternity” and “maternity” are clear.  Both the man and the woman have a “parent and child relationship” with the baby.  The woman’s name is listed on the birth certificate as the mother and the man’s name is listed on the birth certificate as the father. 

With adoption of a child, parental rights are also well-settled.  The man and the woman petition the court to adopt the child, to terminate the biological mother (and father’s when known) legal rights, and for the adoptive parents to become the legal parents.   A Court Report of Adoption is prepared which contains the child’s original birth name, etc. and the natural parents’ names, as well as the child’s new name and information about the adoptive parents.  Then, the child’s original birth record is sealed and a new birth certificate is prepared listing the adoptive father’s name as the father and the adoptive mother’s name as the mother. 

With surrogacy, the legal rights of all involved start getting a little tricky.  First, there are many different types of surrogacy.  A woman’s eggs can be harvested and fertilized by her husband’s sperm and implanted into another woman (surrogate), eggs can be donated by another woman, sperm can be donated, a woman can volunteering (or be paid) to be inseminated with a married man’s sperm in order to conceive and carry a child for a married couple,  etc.   Donors may be known or anonymous.  The most common types of surrogacy according to surrogacy.com are outlined below: 

• Traditional Surrogacy (Artificial Insemination) 
  An arrangement between the intended parents of the child and a woman who agrees to donate her egg(s) to be artificially inseminated with the sperm of the intended father. In most states the intended mother does a step-parent adoption after the birth in order to establish her parental rights and so that the surrogate will relinquish her rights regarding the child.
• Gestational Surrogacy
  An arrangement between the intended parents of the child and a woman who agrees to carry the embryo(s) made from the egg(s) and sperm of the intended parents. The child(ren) of gestational surrogacy is/are the genetic child(ren) of the intended parents, and the surrogate carries the embryo/fetus to term in the role of “host” uterus. In this form of surrogacy, the surrogate may also be called the “gestational carrier”.
• Donor Egg/Gestational Surrogacy
  Arrangement between the intended parents of the child and a woman who agrees to carry the embryo(s) made from the egg(s) of a third party donor (who is often anonymous) and sperm of the intended father. The surrogate carries the embryo/fetus to term as a “host” uterus since there is no biological tie between the surrogate and the embryo/fetus. In this form of surrogacy, the surrogate may also be called the “gestational carrier”.

In many states, the woman who gives birth to a child is presumed to be the mother and is thus named on the birth certificate as such.  With the increase of “assisted conception” and “third party reproduction” methods, however, some states may have regulations in place regarding naming the intended or biological mother on the original birth certificate.  On the father’s side, the intended or biological father may be able to “acknowledge” paternity and be named on the original birth certificate.  However, in many states if a surrogate is married, her husband may be “presumed” to be the father and thus listed on the original birth certificate.  Of course, these “presumptions” may be rebutted through evidence otherwise.

In California, the names of the father or mother listed on a child’s original birth certificate can be changed through a court order called an “Adjudication of Facts of Parentage.” A hospital or the Department of Vital Records can not change the names on a birth certificate without this official court order or “adjudication.”  To get the court order, the person(s) must petition the court, present facts about their situation, and the court must officially determine whether a “parent and child relationship” exists in order for the birth certificate to be changed. 

The Adjudication of Facts of Parentage (court order) must state the following:

1. 1. Specifically instruct the Department of Vital Statistics to remove the existing father and add the new father.
2. 2. Include the child’s date and place of birth as listed on his or her original birth certificate.
3. 3. If the child’s name is being changed, the full new name must be listed in the court order.

Given all of the above, the birth certificates of Michael Jackson’s children may not necessarily be the whole story.  Of course, they would be evidence of legal paternity and maternity.  Since the stakes are quite high in circumstances such as these - i.e. who will obtain legal rights to custody of a child - it is extremely important to seek the advice of an experienced attorney when contemplating assisted conception, third party reproduction, surrogacy, or other methods to create your family.  For more information, contact a family law attorney or a surrogacy lawyer.

Some of the significant cases the Supreme Court decided in its 2008-09 term:

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. It was a decision that could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination where there is no evidence it was intentional. The white firefighters claimed they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. The city says it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a “disparate impact” on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Decided on June 29, 2009.

STATE REGULATION OF BANKS

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state attorneys general can investigate national banks for discrimination and other crimes in the states where they operate as long as they can convince a judge that investigations are needed. Federal courts had blocked an investigation begun by New York, which was backed by the other 49 states, of whether minorities were being charged higher interest rates on home mortgage loans by national banks with branches in New York. The high court ruled that state attorneys general cannot issue subpoenas or bring enforcement actions against banks on their own, but can go to court to get permission to investigate. Decided on June 29, 2009.

STRIP SEARCH

The Supreme Court ruled that school officials violated an Arizona teenager’s rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen. The court said educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk and they reasonably suspect where something is being hidden. In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding, who was 13 at the time. The court ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could. Decided June 25, 2009.

VOTING RIGHTS

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled in a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act, siding with a small Texas governing authority but sidestepping the larger constitutional issue. The court in an 8-1 decision avoided the major questions raised over the federal government’s most powerful tool to prevent discriminatory voting changes since the mid-1960s. The law requires all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination in voting to get approval before making changes in the way elections are conducted. The court said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, can apply to opt out of the advance approval requirement, reversing a lower federal court that found it could not. Decided on June 22, 2009.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

The Supreme Court ruled that parents don’t have to send their special education students to public schools before seeking reimbursement for private school tuition. The justices ruled 6-3 that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require public school attendance before parents of special ed students can ask to be reimbursed for the child’s tuition at private schools. The family of a teenage Oregon boy has fought to get reimbursed for $65,000 in private tuition. Decided June 22, 2009.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

The Supreme Court made it harder to prove discrimination on the basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he was demoted because of his age. In a 5-4 decision, the court said a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons. Decided June 18, 2009.

DNA TESTING

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that convicts have no constitutional right to test genetic evidence to try to show their innocence. The court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions. This decision could have a limited effect because 47 states and the federal government already have laws that allow DNA testing in some circumstances. William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. Decided on June 18, 2009.

JUDICIAL ETHICS

The Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias. By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair hearing. Justice at Stake, which tracks campaign spending in judicial elections, says judges are elected in 39 states and that candidates for the highest state courts have raised more than $168 million since 2000. Decided June 8, 2009.

IRAQ IMMUNITY

The Supreme Court ruled that the current government in Iraq cannot be held responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The high court unanimously turned away lawsuits from Americans who were held in Iraq during the Gulf War. The court said a federal law enacted in 2003 gave Iraq back the immunity that was stripped by the designation of Saddam’s government as a sponsor of terrorism. Decided on June 8, 2009.

LAWYER REQUEST

The Supreme Court overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects. The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The court’s opinion said the decision will have “minimal” effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions. Decided on May 26, 2009.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be sued by a former Sept. 11 detainee who claimed he was abused because of his religion and ethnicity. This decision could make it harder to sue top officials for the actions of low-level operatives. The court overturned a lower court decision that let Javaid Iqbal’s lawsuit against the high-ranking officials proceed. Iqbal is a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in New York in 2002. He had argued that Ashcroft and Mueller were responsible for a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs or race. Decided May 18, 2009.

MATERNITY LEAVE

The Supreme Court ruled that women who took maternity leave before it became illegal to discriminate against pregnant women can’t sue to force employers to count their leave time for their pensions. Four AT&T Corp. employees who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976 sued the company to get their leave time credited toward their pensions. Their pregnancies occurred before the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred companies from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves. The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, overturned a lower-court decision that said that decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions. Decided on May 18, 2009.

IDENTITY THEFT

A unanimous Supreme Court said that undocumented workers who use phony IDs can’t be considered identity thieves without proof they knew they were stealing real people’s Social Security and other numbers. The court’s decision limits federal authorities’ use of a 2004 identity theft law against immigrants who are picked up in workplace raids and found to be using false Social Security and alien registration numbers. Advocates for immigrants had complained authorities used the threat of prosecution on the identity theft charge to win guilty pleas on lesser charges and acceptance of prompt deportation. Decided May 4, 2009.

SUPERFUND

The Supreme Court said Shell Oil Co. cannot be held responsible for cleanup of a contaminated Superfund site owned by a defunct company simply because it delivered chemicals to the site. The court, in an 8-1 decision, also decided that railroad companies that leased the defunct company part of the land would only have to pay for a small part of the cleanup. Decided on May 4, 2009.

BROADCAST INDECENCY

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a government policy that threatens broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television. The court, however, stopped short of deciding whether the policy violates the Constitution. By a 5-4 vote, the court threw out a lower court ruling that said the agency could not now start levying large fines for the type of fleeting expletives that it had let slide for years. This was the Supreme Court’s first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years. Decided April 28, 2009.

WARRANTLESS SEARCH

The Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers. The court’s 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect, particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a traffic violation. The court said warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car’s passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest. Decided on April 21, 2009.

POWER PLANTS

The Supreme Court ruled that the government can weigh costs against benefits in deciding whether to order power plants to undertake environmental upgrades that would protect fish. The court’s 6-3 decision is a defeat for environmentalists who had urged the justices to uphold a favorable federal appeals court ruling that could have required an estimated 554 power plants to install technology that relies on recycled water to cool machinery. Decided on April 1, 2009.

TOBACCO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

The Supreme Court left in place a $79.5 million award to a smoker’s widow, ending a 10-year legal fight over the large payout. The court let stand a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court in favor of Mayola Williams and against Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA. Williams persuaded a jury in 1999 that the company should be held accountable for misleading people into thinking cigarettes were not dangerous or addictive. The justices initially agreed to review the Oregon court judgment, then changed their minds without explanation. Announced March 31, 2009.

VOTING RIGHTS

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that electoral districts must have a majority of African-Americans or other minorities to be protected by a provision of the Voting Rights Act. The court declined to expand protections of the landmark civil rights law to take in electoral districts where the minority population is less than 50 percent, but strong enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections. The decision could make it more difficult for Democrats, particularly in the South and Southwest, to draw electoral boundaries friendly to black or Hispanic candidates following the 2010 Census. Decided on March 9, 2009.

DRUG MAKER LIABILITY

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court forcefully rejected calls for limiting consumer lawsuits against drug makers, upholding a $6.7 million jury award to a musician who lost her arm to gangrene following an injection. The right arm of Diana Levine of Vermont was amputated after she was injected with Phenergan, an anti-nausea medicine made by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Levine’s lawsuit said she wasn’t sufficiently warned of the risks of using Phenergan. The justices turned away Wyeth’s claim that federal regulation provides a shield against lawsuits like Levine’s. Decided March 4, 2009.

RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Summum, a small religious group, cannot force a city in Utah to place a granite marker in a local park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display. The court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment. The Summum believe that when Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai he received a second set of tablets called the Seven Aphorisms. Decided Feb. 25, 2009.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FIREARMS

The Supreme Court affirmed the use of a federal law barring people convicted of domestic violence crimes from owning guns. The court, in a 7-2 decision, said state laws against battery need not specifically mention domestic violence to fall under the domestic violence gun ban that was enacted in 1996. The case involved Randy Edwards Hayes, a West Virginia man whose earlier misdemeanor conviction for beating his wife gave rise to a federal felony indictment for gun possession. Decided on Feb. 24, 2009.

RETALIATION

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that workers who cooperate with their employers’ internal investigations of discrimination may not be fired in retaliation for implicating colleagues or superiors.The justices held that a longtime school system employee in Tennessee can pursue a civil rights lawsuit over her firing. The court voted to reverse a federal appeals court ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to employees who merely cooperate with an internal probe rather than complain on their own or take part in a formal investigation. Decided Jan. 26, 2009.

EVIDENCE

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants. The justices voted 5-4 to apply new limits to a rule requiring evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches or seizure. Justices acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges. Decided on Jan. 14, 2009.

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

The Supreme Court handed a defeat to tobacco companies counting on it to put an end to lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing of “light” cigarettes. In a 5-4 split won by the court’s liberals, it ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote light and “low tar” brands. The decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Decided on Dec. 15, 2008.

NAVY SONAR USAGE

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that military training trumps protecting whales in a dispute over the Navy’s use of sonar in submarine-hunting exercises off the coast of southern California. The court said forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet. The most serious possible injury to environmental groups would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals the groups study, justices said. Decided Nov. 12, 2008.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Jackson’s 7-year-old will was filed Wednesday in a Los Angeles court, giving his entire estate to a family trust and cutting out his former wife Debbie Rowe.

The will, dated July 7, 2002, estimated his estate at that time at more than $500 million.

It names his mother, Katherine Jackson, as a beneficiary of the trust and the guardian of Jackson’s children, who are named in the will.

It also names entertainer Diana Ross as a successor guardian for the children and their estates if something happens to Katherine Jackson.

Ross introduced the Jackson 5 on the Ed Sullivan Show in the late 1960s and was instrumental in launching their career. She was a lifelong friend of Michael Jackson.

Meanwhile, a person familiar with the situation said no public Jackson memorial was planned for Neverland.

Santa Barbara officials had discussed the possibility a memorial or public viewing could occur Thursday.

But the person, who is not authorized to speak for the family and requested anonymity, said nothing was planned for Neverland at least through Friday. The source said it appears more likely a funeral and burial will take place in Los Angeles. The family has the final say.

The person says billionaire Thomas Barrack, who owns Neverland in a joint venture with Jackson, sought an exemption to bury the singer at the ranch. But the person says it’s a complicated process and it couldn’t be done for a burial this week.

The will gives the entire estate to the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Details of the trust will not be made public.

The documents said Jackson’s estate consisted almost entirely of “non-cash, non-liquid assets, including primarily an interest in a catalog of music royalty rights which is currently being administered by Sony ATV, and the interests of various entities.”

One of Jackson’s most lucrative assets is his stake in the massive Sony-ATV Music Publishing Catalog, which includes music by the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers, and is estimated to be worth as much as $2 billion.

Jackson’s longtime lawyer John Branca and John McClain, a music executive and a family friend, are named in the will as co-executors.

In a statement, Branca and McClain said: “The most important element of Michael’s will is his unwavering desire that his mother, Katherine, become the legal guardian for his three children. As we work to carry out Michael’s instructions to safeguard both the future of his children as well as the remarkable legacy he left us as an artist we ask that all matters involving his estate be handled with the dignity and the respect that Michael and his family deserve.”

The five-page will is signed by Jackson, and each paragraph includes Jackson’s scrawling initials.

Jackson, who died Thursday at age 50, left behind three children: son Michael Joseph Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; daughter Paris Michael Katherine, 11; and son Prince Michael II, 7. Rowe was the mother of the two oldest children; the youngest was born to a surrogate mother, who has never been identified.

Katherine Jackson was granted temporary guardianship Monday of Jackson’s three children. A judge held off on requests to control the children’s estates, and gave her limited control over her son’s property.

Rowe, who was married to Jackson in 1996 and filed for divorce three years later, surrendered her parental rights. An appeals court later found that was done in error, and Rowe and Jackson entered an out-of-court settlement in 2006.

Neither Rowe nor her attorneys have indicated whether she intends to seek custody of the two oldest children.

Funeral plans have not yet been announced.

On Tuesday, heavy construction equipment and workers passed through the gates of Neverland Ranch, fueling speculation that it could soon be hosting Jackson’s funeral or even a permanent memorial.

Groups of gardeners and florists bearing huge wreaths were also spotted on the 2,500-acre Santa Barbara County property about 120 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

Members of Jackson’s family met Tuesday with officials from the Los Angeles police and California Highway Patrol about funeral services. But “details are still pending,” according to Fran Clader, a spokeswoman for the patrol. The patrol would need to be consulted if the body was moved from Los Angeles to Neverland.

It was unclear whether Jackson could be legally buried at the ranch. The state’s health and safety code makes interring any uncremated remains outside of a cemetery a misdemeanor. Cremated remains can be kept in a home or private mausoleum outside a cemetery.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is not fighting a nearly $500,000 judgment for a Library of Congress hiree who lost the job while undergoing a gender change from a man to a woman.

The Justice Department let the deadline to appeal the decision pass Tuesday, a day after President Barack Obama hosted gay supporters at the White House and promised to be their “champion.” Some activists have complained he has not led on their causes, including ending the ban on gays in the military.

Diane Schroer, a retired Army Special Forces commander from Alexandria, Va., had been offered a job at the Library of Congress when he was a man, David Schroer. The job was rescinded the day after Schroer told a library official he was going to have an operation to become a woman.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Schroer’s behalf in 2005, and two months ago a federal judge awarded her $491,190 in back pay and damages because of sex discrimination.

The Library of Congress and President George W. Bush’s Justice Department had argued unsuccessfully that discrimination because of transsexuality was not illegal sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

Schroer said she saw the administration’s decision not to appeal as a recognition that transgender discrimination must end and “gives me renewed hope and restores some of my shaken faith in what our country stands for.”

“This case put employers on notice that discrimination against transgender individuals is like any other form of discrimination — counterproductive and against our principles as a nation,” she said in a statement. But she added that Congress must pass a law preventing “rampant” transgender discrimination across the country.

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler put the solicitor general’s decision not to appeal the ruling in legal, not political, terms.

“The District Court’s detailed factual findings, as well as its alternate legal holdings, make this case a poor vehicle to contest the underlying issues,” she said.

Schroer is a former U.S. Army colonel who directed a classified group that tracked and targeted terrorists. Schroer retired in 2004 after 25 years of service and worked briefly in the private sector before applying for the Congressional Research Service job at the Library of Congress.

After being offered the job, Schroer had lunch with a Library of Congress official and explained the upcoming surgery. Schroer testified the official called the next day and said the position would not be a “good fit.”

The ACLU said the decision not to appeal fits with Obama’s campaign promises to protect transgender workers against discrimination and his administration’s recent order taking steps to bar gender identity discrimination in federal employment.

“The administration’s decision not to challenge this important civil rights ruling is a welcome sign that it intends to live up to its commitment to help end transgender discrimination in the workplace,” said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

With a high speed chase, you might only hear those police sirens for a few seconds before the cars come whizzing by you on the street.  Sometimes, maybe not even long even to property move over to the curb - or at least get partially out of the way!  Too often, however, those high speed police chases cause accidents and injure the innocent drivers on the road.   The courts were then faced with having to decide whether, or to what extent, a police officer could be liable to an injured driver for causing an accident as a result of a high speed chase.  I mean, if regular drivers who speed through the streets and intersections cause and accident, they’re liable to those they’ve injured.  Why shouldn’t the police be liable for causing the same accident?

Well, it’s not that simple I guess.  They’re in the “line of duty,” driving “authorized emergency vehicles,” and pursuing criminals.  State laws even provide for a limitation of liability.  For example, California Vehicle Code Section 17004 states the following:

“A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”

By enacting these kinds of liability-limiting laws for police and other emergency vehicles, “we the people” have decided that the interests of justice are served by granting the police “immunity” from prosecution for injuries that may occur during pursuing fleeing suspects.  Many of those suspects who flee have just committed serious crimes - car jacking, murder, robbery… but sometimes police conduct high speed pursuits over less serious offenses.  If the police were prohibited from speeding to chase after them…. the suspects would simply just get away.

But the line has to be drawn somewhere.   Some might argue that all high speed chases endanger the innocent other drivers on the road - that the police act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of the public on the roadway when they conduct a high speed chase.  Even further, sometimes the way in which a high speed police car pursuit is conducted actually “shocks the conscience” of the community.  For instance, would a high speed chase in excess of 100 mph along neighborhood streets in front of an elementary school be okay in pursuit of a minor traffic offender? If a 6-year old girl was killed by the police car while she crossed the street to go home… well, we might then look at that high speed chase and determine that it not only was in “reckless disregard for public safety,” but that it does in fact “shock the conscience.”

The courts have struggled over the years with what should be the standard for determining if a high speed chase was dangerous enough to hold law enforcement liable for violating our constitutional due process rights in connection with injuries sustained from such high speed chase.   Should it be a police pursuit that is simply “reckless”… or should it be only if a high speed chase is so reckless that there is a “conscious, knowing disregard for human life and safety”… or should it be the even higher standard of only when a high speed pursuit under the circumstances actually downright “shocks our conscience.”   Conduct that “shocks the conscience” is conduct that is “deliberately intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.”  The “shock the conscience” standard is currently in use by the courts.  

The issue is incredibly important from a policy perspective because if the standard for constitutional liability is very high, then law enforcement will rarely be found liable.  If the standard is lower, more liability will be found, which will result in fewer apprehensions of criminals.

If you’re interested, you can read some of the court cases on this topic below: 

U.S. Supreme Court - COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERI LEWIS AND THOMAS LEWIS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PHILIP LEWIS, DECEASED, May 26, 1998.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Noni ONOSSIAN; Cyril Onossian; Herve Onossian, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sherman BLOCK; Michael Antonovich; Deane Dana; Ed
Edelman; Kenneth Hahn; Gloria Molina; County of Los Angeles; Daniel Finn; Larry Yates; Bruce Thomas, & One Hundred Unknown Named Employees & or Officials of County of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees, May 26, 1999.