American actor Charlie Sheen is a very wealthy man. Rumour has it that before he was fired (or did he quit?) from Two and a Half Men, the popular CBS sitcom, he earned $1.8 million dollars per episode.

Nice work if you can get it.

Not a stranger to the justice system, Charlie has had his share of legal encounters including court appearances for drug offences, criminal mischief, multiple divorces, and spousal assault.

This week however, he was in court supporting a temporary custody order in favour of ex-wife #2, Denise Richards, who as a result of ex-wife #3, Brooke Mueller’s substance abuse problem, is now caring for Sheen and Mueller’s four-year-old twins while Mueller dries out at the Betty Ford Clinic in Palm Springs.

Sheen’s counsel argued that Ms. Mueller’s application to have the twins cared for by her brother while she is in rehab, rather than Ms. Richards, is a crass ploy to continue to receive $55,000 a month in child support, money he says she needs to support herself.

Reportedly, Ms. Mueller’s counsel’s rebuttal is that Denise Richards wants the extra $55,000 to add to the $55,000 she receives from Charlie Sheen for their two children.

Nonsense says Sheen, who confirmed that Ms. Richards has not requested a penny to step in to assist with the twins.

Apparently Mr. Sheen’s position prevailed, as the Court confirmed the young boys will remain with Denise Richards.

Sheen released a statement shortly after his children were taken from Mueller’s home.

“Charlie supports the actions of the Department of Children and Family Services,” a representative for the Sheen told the News. “He knows Max and Bob are safe and in a stable, loving environment with Denise and the boys’ sisters. Charlie will fully cooperate and fully participate in all proceedings.”

A complicated family, no doubt, but tell me…How does one spend $55,000 a month on two four-year-olds?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

When Americans Elena and Peter Marano separated in 2007 after twenty years of marriage they each received one-half of their net worth of $20 million dollars. End of story, right? Not so fast.

Between 2007 and 2010 Mr. Marano’s interest in certain real estate investments in London England, where they had lived for most of their marriage, plunged from a value of $88 million dollars to a net loss of $10 million, an astonishing decrease, all on account of the world-wide economic disaster of 2008 and 2009.

As a result of Mr. Marano’s stupefying losses, his ex-wife was ordered to pay him an additional $5 million dollars from her share of the family pot. Needless to say, she took great objection to this outcome and launched an appeal of the order to pay.

Two year prior to their separation, Ms. Marano’s father, American entrepreneur John Bowes died leaving a substantial estate. He was the creator of both the hula hoop and the frisbee, which he sold to toy company Mattel in 1994 for $250 million. However, even before his passing, Ms. Marano was the beneficiary of a significant trust fund set up by him.

Ms. Marano argued that it was “monstrously unfair” that she should be compelled to pay her ex for his business losses, suggesting that if the market recovered he would reap the original value of the assets, but she would not. Her counsel suggested a more reasonable approach would be to sit on the assets for a further five years, then sell them and order the parties to share equally in any profit or loss.

After all she argued, if the real estate investments had increased in value from the date of separation to the date the assets were divided, she would not likely have shared in their uptick in value.

She also argued that she had new evidence that would prove the investments had already increased from $10 million in the red to between $4 million and $15 million in the last two years.

Unfortunately for her, the Appeal Court refused to admit her new evidence of value and dismissed her appeal of the order.

Not unlike other vastly wealthy couples, the court learned that the Maranos’ spent over $1 million dollars each on legal fees. It seems to be the thing to do these days: Marry, become obscenely rich and then spend a couple of million dollars fighting over your millions.

There is something wrong with this picture…

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Let’s face it, most of us who commit ourselves into the bond of marriage are reluctant to think about it one day crumbling into a messy divorce, but the truth is, with today’s increasing divorce numbers, the reality is downright dismal ( in the US around 50% of all first marriages end in divorce, about 67% for second marriages and the numbers quickly rise with the number of additional marriages).

So what does this mean in terms of finding an attorney if you are among that fifty percent wanting to dissolve you marriage? Plenty!

Here are a few tips to heed if you find yourself needing someone to help you wade through the murky and unfamiliar waters of divorce.

• Before you file: Really consider the ramifications of filing for divorce. Have you exhausted every avenue before taking the steps for your divorce? Counseling and separation can be important steps to take before you make the final move.

Be very careful about moving about before the divorce, this could potentially be used against you, especially in the case of determining custody for minor children. Run a credit check for yourself, if possible get your finances in the best shape that you can. Divorce is extremely expensive and no matter the verdict, both parties will lose when it comes to finances.

Are you the non-breadwinner? You will need to take care of your personal finances as well as your healthcare, housing, cars and personal effects. A good attorney will inform you of what you should do long before you sign anything. Above all, if you can avoid divorce, then do so. Except in the cases of abuse or criminal behaviors on the part of your spouse, you should give your marriage every effort. Divorce should always be a last resort.

• Arbitration and Mediation versus litigation: The dissolution of a marriage cannot be on the same footing as breaking a business contract, though similar as seen through the eyes of the law, no one can put a price on the cost of someone’s betrayal or the lives of children of divorced parents who will forever grieve the loss of a family unit.

But there are ways to lessen the emotional trauma often association with divorce. If at all possible going through mediation services versus outright litigation will help not only with the overall costs, but will help families make choices over issues that can become quickly contentious if presided over by a non-family member or law enforcement.

Talk with your attorney; chances are if they have experience with family law and especially mediation expertise, this would make a better fit than someone hell-bent on taking on your spouse for every nickel and dime. Consider arbitration as an alternative to a lengthy, drawn-out court battle.

• Your attorney’s personal history: Find out about your attorney. Are they married? Or have they also been through a divorce, child custody battles with their own children or were they able to use their legal acumen to help minimize the trauma inflicted on all parties involved.

Sit down and talk with them about your personal feelings in regards to your spouse’s role, your custody concerns and your future. Do they really seem to be listening, adding thoughtful comments to your concerns or do you feel even more ambivalent after you leave their office?

Other than the death of a family member, going through a divorce is right there when it comes to life-altering experiences and more than ever, you will need someone who you feel confident in, someone who will stand up and defend you and fight for all rights.

A good family law lawyer will explain your rights and what you can expect with a divorce, they will not try to sugarcoat the truth about how difficult the situations will be, they will in all likelihood try to talk you out of a divorce, but if you are both in agreement about pursuing a divorce, they will be with you every step of the way.

GUEST AUTHOR NOAH KOVACS has over ten years experience in the legal field. He has since retired early and enjoys blogging about small business law, at href=”http://www.attorneyboost.com/legal-marketing.html”>legal marketing, and everything in between. He recently purchased his first cabin and spends his free time remodeling its kitchen for his family. Twitter: @NoahKovacs.

Despite what you hear or read, you can’t blame Ernest MacIntosh for today’s Supreme Court of Canada decision to quash his convictions for sex charges involving young boys in the 1970′s.

A successful Cape Breton businessman, MacIntosh was transferred by his employer to Singapore and then to India in 1994 where he remained until his extradition back to Canada in 2007 to face numerous counts of indecent assault and gross indecency charges stemming from allegations made by six young men in 1995.

When MacIntosh left Canada in 1994 there were no charges against him and he had no idea that charges may be laid. Over the years he travelled between India and Canada, renewing his Canadian passport from time to time as required by Canadian law.

He was not hiding from the law. Canadian authorities knew where he lived in New Delhi and had his phone number. Coincidentally, one of his neighbours was an RCMP officer who worked as a liaison in India.

MacIntosh finally became aware of two criminal charges in 1997 but was led to believe by Canada Passport authorities that the charges were not proceeding. He heard nothing more until nine years later, despite the fact that in 2001 fifteen more charges were brought against him and he renewed his passport in 2002. The Crown acknowledged their decision to extradite Mr. MacIntosh in 1997 but as you will read, did nothing about it for nine years.

In 2006 the Crown filed extradition proceedings in India, some 11 years after the first charges were laid and five years after the second group of charges were filed against him.

Mr. MacIntosh was brought back to Canada in June 2007 but did not receive complete mandatory disclosure from the Crown until eleven months later, an astonishing delay considering that the Crown had readied their cases years before.

He finally went to trial in July 2010 and was convicted on several of the charges. However, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the convictions based on the 14 year delay of the Crown in proceeding against MacIntosh. But that wasn’t the only problem with the convictions.

The trial judge had so badly confused the evidence, even mixing up the witnesses and attributing evidence to one witness that was derived from another, that the Appeal Court determined that even absent the extraordinary delay, the judge’s errors would be cause for a new trial.

A key issue at the trial was centred on statements made by an alleged victim in 1995 and again in 2000 concerning details of the abuse he suffered, that simply could not be reconciled.

The trial judge acknowledged the discrepancies and based on the victim’s evidence and the testimony of another witness, determined that the assault did not take place at all. Yet despite this finding, the judge did not turn his attention to the issue of the victim’s overall credibility.

The finding that the alleged abuse did not occur as described, or at all, points to a flaw in the Crown’s preparation of their witness. In cases where a witness signs a comprehensive statement which he radically amends five years later, it is incumbent upon the Crown to test the evidence of the witness to ensure its reliability. Under cross-examination, this witness agreed that the event did not occur.

That the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown’s appeal in an oral judgment from the bench speaks to the Crown’s flimsy case. After all, an accused is not obliged to turn himself into the police or give a statement. It is the Crown’s job to bring an accused to trial.

Most notably, the Crown was unable to provide any rationale for their delay in prosecuting this case and cries for a public inquiry may well be revived now that our highest court has spoken.

Has an injustice occurred? Perhaps, but the fault lies with those paid to bring criminals to trial.