Roman Polanski will be returning to the courtroom for an overdue hearing for his criminal case later this week. The case could be resolved quickly, the appeals court has suggested, if Roman’s attorneys agree to sentencing in absentia — without Roman physically in court — or Roman drops his opposition to being extradited to the United States. Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini said Judge Peter Espinoza will hold a hearing for Roman’s case on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports.

Roman is currently under house arrest at his Swiss chalet after he was arrested in late September on a fugitive warrant.

He was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl during a 1977 modeling shoot and was indicted on six felony counts and pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. Roman fled to France the day before his sentencing in 1978 after spending 42 days in a California prison for psychiatric evaluation.

The First Penal Transitory Hall of the Peruvian Supreme Court of Justice ratified on Sunday the sentence of 25-year imprisonment against former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimory, for qualified homicide, killing and grave injuries.

The trial was carried by Judge of the Supreme Tribunal Duberli Rodriguez, as well as by judges Julio Biaggi, Elvia Barros, Roberto Barandiaran and Jose Neyra.

According to a statement of the Tribunal, by unanimity the judges ratified that Fujimori (1990-2000) was the "mediate author of the crimes of qualified homicide and grave injuries."

During the trial, the judges also determined that Fujimori has to pay 62,400 soles (22,285 U.S. dollars) to Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza and Carmen Juana Marinos Figueroa, each, who are direct relatives of the victims.

The NFL players, like football fans everywhere, will be focused on the playoffs this month and the fierce competition for a spot in the Super Bowl. Their lawyers, however, will be keeping an eye on the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 13, the pro football owners will be asking the high court to rule for the first time that the NFL is shielded from antitrust laws because, while its teams compete on the playing field, they function in business as a "single entity."

If the justices were to agree, the ramifications could be significant, not just for football but all pro sports leagues, say experts in sports law. Freed from the antitrust laws, owners could get together to restrict salaries for players and coaches and raise prices for everything from tickets to stocking caps.

"For the NFL, this case is like buying a lottery ticket. If they win, it's a huge victory, with the potential to be incredibly significant," said Gabe Feldman, who teaches sports law at Tulane University. "If not, they don't lose much."

Sports leagues have long confounded antitrust law because they involve both competition and collaboration. The National Football League is made up of 32 independently owned teams that not only compete on the field, but also compete off the field for players, coaches and the loyalty of fans.

A defunct South Florida law firm run by an attorney now charged with operating a huge Ponzi scheme gave more than $6 million in the past year to charities and nonprofit groups.

A federal bankruptcy court filing details contributions by the firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler to more than 100 organizations. Former firm CEO Scott Rothstein has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and other charges stemming from what prosecutors say was a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme involving legal settlement investments.

The biggest amount was more than $2.5 million to Rothstein's own Rothstein Family Foundation. Big donations also went to Boys and Girls Clubs, arts groups, Jewish organizations and several groups affiliated with professional athletes.

Burns, White & Hickton LLC, Pittsburgh’s tenth-largest law firm, opened two new offices late last month, in Harrisburg, and in Cherry Hill, N.J., bringing its total number of sites to eight.

Burns, White & Hickton, founded in 1987, employs close to 100 lawyers, two-thirds of whom are based in its headquarters on Pittsburgh’s North Shore.

The firm, which focuses on litigation, transportation and transactional law, tripled the number of lawyers in its Philadelphia-area office alone over the past two and a half years.

Vermonters running for office this year are already raising and spending money, but the rules that try to limit the influence of campaign money on government are murky.

Legislators may – again – pass a bill this year limiting donations from individuals, political action committees and parties. But there will be factors that will complicate that decision.

For one thing, it is an election year, a time when lawmakers have typically stayed away from campaign finance bills. And at least four senators are already running for higher office, as are Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, who presides over the Senate, and Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, the state's chief election officer.

Finally, a new lawsuit, brought by some of the plaintiffs and the lawyer who successfully challenged the state's last set of campaign finance laws before the U.S. Supreme Court, will move forward.

The previous lawsuit by Vermont Right to Life and attorney James Bopp, who frequently challenges states' campaign finance laws, resulted in the country's top court tossing out central parts of Vermont's rules governing money in politics, which were passed in 1998.

Since then, under the advice of Attorney General William Sorrel, the state has operated under the laws that preceded the 1998 changes. Twice lawmakers have passed a bill implementing a new set of campaign finance laws, and twice Gov. James Douglas has vetoed the measure.

Lawmakers have tried to set more stringent limits on contributions from any given donor and especially from PACs and parties. Douglas objects to the way the bills would curb giving by parties.

Georgia’s new “super speeder law,” which went into effect Jan. 1, applies to motorists convicted of driving 85 miles per hour or faster on a multi-lane road or interstate, or 75 miles per hour or faster on a two-lane road.

Gov. Sonny Perdue has said fines collected under the new law could generate $23 million annually for the state’s coffers, and other estimates run as high as $30 million. But at least one Middle Georgia sheriff claims it’s going to create a hardship for the poor.

Emanuel County Sheriff J. Tyson Stephens, a past president of the Georgia Sheriffs' Association, says the new law amounts to yet another tax on citizens, one that will disproportionately deplete the pockets of the poor and lower middle-class.

“Let’s say you have a single mother who’s trying to get about and get her kids to day care and school and herself to work, and she slips up and has a ticket,” explains Stephens. “She pays that fine with her local jurisdiction, and then it goes to Driver Services, and they send her a notice sometime later she’s being assessed $200 on [her] super speeder violation, and we are talking about someone who could barely pay the first fine.

“So now she has to decide, does she pay the $200 to the state or does she feed her children that week? Obviously, she’s going to have to choose the rent and food over the super speeder law. Next thing you know, her insurance is canceled. It’s a domino effect, and I don’t see the need for it.”

Stephens’ assessment of how the law works is correct. After a conviction is processed through the appropriate court, word is sent to the Georgia Department of Driver Services. The offender is then notified she has to pay $200—the super speeder fine, in addition to her original fine—within 90 days, or her license is suspended. If the license is suspended, the offender must fork over $250 to get it back.