Charlie Sheen is adamant that CBS owes him the apology rather than the other way around, and instead of Sheen begging for his job back, Sheen insists that CBS will be begging him to come back to finish the cancelled show. But Sheen will only return to work if he gets a million dollar per episode raise. Charlie Sheen, in his Today Show interview with Jeff Rossen, insisted the behavior outside of work that CBS complained of, never affected his performance on the show, and Sheen consistently delivered the goods on air like nobody else in television. Sheen was confident that his career was never better positioned to take off, with movie offers on the table, and CBS certain to offer Sheen a public apology while “licking my feet.”

Sheen insisted he kicked drug and alcohol addiction through willpower alone and not with the help of any programs this time because he is “special.” Other people cannot do what he did because they do not have “tiger blood and Adonis DNA.” And even though he admits addiction, and declares he has beat it by the power of his mind, he boasts he is able to celebrate with the occasional glass of champagne or wine, because that’s how people celebrate. Is this like beating diabetes with your mind, and then being able to eat candy on occasion?

Sheen also believes that his children will benefit from learning about his exploits by reading about them in the papers and then speaking to their father about them directly. The children will have the benefit of learning about perspective– their father’s. He says, “God no, talk about education…. Wow, winning. That’s how you perceive it.” And what will be their subject matter? They will read reports in newspapers that Sheen was arrested in Colorado for allegedly assaulting his wife, that Sheen allegedly destroyed a hotel room after an intoxicated exploit with a porn star, that Sheen lost his job for “statements, conduct and condition”, yet Sheen believes this material will be excellent education for his children. Sheen referred to the remarks about these incidents from anyone who was not there as “gibberish of fools.”

Sheen described his fight with CBS with venom and vitriol in his voice. He said he is at war with CBS. “They picked a war with a warlock.” He talked about CBS trying to destroy his family by going after Sheen’s money. Sheen said he will win the war with “violent hatred.” Sheen was asked about having been called an anti-semite, which Sheen denied by saying “I’m not that guy. That’s silliness.” Sheen said he had not spoken to Chuck Lorre, the show’s co-creator, whom he referred to as Haim Levine during a radio show, since they ended the hit television show. When asked if there was anything he would like to say to Lorre, Sheen was loaded for bear. Reading off prepared handwritten index cards, he fired off several pointed questions. Then, looking right into the camera, Sheen pulled out the AA handbook, flipped to the passage about acceptance, read from it, and said, “Accept me, Chuck.”

The question is, after this interview, will anyone ever accept Charlie Sheen again? Ever?

Divorce is a financial transaction just like dissolving a business, partnership or corporation. It is mostly a matter of money. But because the partnership was once romantic, and based on the most intimate bond humans can form, its disruption wreaks havoc on human emotion.

What might seem otherwise like a logical division of income, assets and property, becomes a battle of wills and hearts and egos. And what worse place to take such an unruly battle than to the courtroom, the place where logic and reason prevail over passion and emotion? This is why divorce court is so unsatisfying- people want an all out battle to avenge their broken hearts or their bruised egos, but the court only wants to divide what it can- the marital estate- money, property and things. And in a no-fault state, which means that anyone who wants “out” can simply file for divorce without having to prove any reason, such as adultery, fault is largely irrelevant.

Tell that to a cuckolded spouse who still has to fork over half his pay for life. “It’s not fair…” is the familiar moan, or “I would rather give it to my lawyer than to my spouse”. But when the legal bills come due, and you end up paying your lawyer for essentially an emotionally unsatisfying fight, you wish you had taken that trip to Europe, bought that antique sports car, had the plastic surgery, paid for your children’s college, or whatever else is on your list of fancies. Giving it to your lawyer to spite your spouse never seems to feel very good in the end, except to your lawyer.

This is why I am in favor of “Green Divorce” (mediation). Or, if you are going to litigate, have something to fight about. Perhaps you really do not agree on the value of the family business. You think it is worth $100,000 and he/she thinks it is worth $1,000,000. That does make a difference in the division of a marital estate, and that is something the courts can be helpful with. Or the future value of a pension, or the speculative nature of the value of future assets, such as the earnings of a stock broker or professional athlete.

But courts are not the place to seek redress for broken hearts, angry feelings, bruised egos, or a desire to punish your departing spouse.

Celebrity divorces such as Tiger Woods’ usually show us what our issues look like only under a spotlight and on steroids- the issues are the same only magnified many times and seen under a microscope, with many more zeroes.

We can all learn our lessons by watching someone else go through the school of hard knocks. No need to have to learn everything ourselves. If it’s a bitter pill for someone else to swallow, chances are it won’t taste much better to us.

When it comes to divorce, let cooler heads prevail, let reason, not emotion sway your decision. Work out your feelings with your therapist, and know that it’s almost always just about money when you go to your lawyer. The courts will be of little help when it comes to making you right and your ex wrong.

You will pay to get divorced- but how much and to whom is more in your hands than you may realize if you keep an open heart, a cool head, and allow logic and reason, not poison emotion, to prevail.

There are outfits for parties and for going out and Lohan’s dress was darling for either- but it was much too fetching and cavalier for court. If anyone wonders whether Lohan loves the attention, muse no more. Her outfit said, “look at me, no, stare, and take me in, all of me.” I would have advised Lohan to be more demure and humble rather than wave a red flag to a bull. I would have her wave a white flag of peace sending the message of humility rather than jocularity. Court is not a hot date or a red carpet cat walk.

Apparently, Lohan still doesn’t get where she is- in hot water in a court of law. The Judge’s tongue lashing may have sobered her up a bit. He let her know in no uncertain terms that the same rules apply to her as they do the rest of us. And that if she breaks the law, he will revoke her bail and remand her to custody. He then set bail which she promptly posted.

Lohan claims she wore white as a sign of innocence. I say leave the theatrics for the theater. And act appropriately in court. If ever there was a time to signal to the court that she gets it, now is the time to send a sign. A big one.

Tomorrow, at 1:00 PT, Lindsay Lohan will be arraigned on felony grand theft charges in L.A.’s Airport courthouse where a judge will decide bail. Lohan will likely post bail after her arraignment tomorrow and leave the courthouse a free woman. But not for long. If convicted, Lohan could face up to three years in state prison. Lohan allegedly shoplifted a one of a kind necklace worth $2,500. Incredible as it seems, for an actress who undoubtedly has the money to pay for it, Lohan faces a felony conviction, time in state prison, and a trip back to county jail on a probation violation, for a rope of gold around her neck. The rope of gold may well turn in into cuffs of silver. Lohan denies the charges.

Because she already owes six months on a DUI conviction for which she is on probation, this new arrest feeds her squarely to the jaws of jail. When the judge let her out of going to jail this last time, and let her go to rehab instead, he told her that he would put her in jail if she violated her probation. What choice does he have but to incarcerate her? If he doesn’t, does the judicial system look like a joke? Or that the rules don’t apply to her? Or that she gets celebrity bad girl special treatment? As for the shoplifting charge, Lohan could likely strike a plea bargain. She might be offered a plea to a lesser misdemeanor charge and get concurrent time or even probation. A felony conviction might be too harsh as it could potentially ruin Lohan’s acting career for life. She may have used poor judgment, she may have committed a crime, she may be behaving badly, but the punishment has to fit the crime. Permanently ruining her future may be a bit more than is warranted as long as Lohan chooses to straighten up and fly right, if she can.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s ongoing extradition hearing in London will decide whether he goes back to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning in connection with one rape allegation and one sexual molestation allegation, or whether he can stay in the U.K. Sweden wants him extradited because they claim he left their country before they could arrest him. Assange denies any wrongdoing and says he left Sweden after five weeks of waiting to be questioned and after being told he had permission to go.

Assange claims that if sent back to Sweden, he can’t get a fair trial because proceedings are behind closed doors. Closed court sessions in sex cases mean no reporters or other outsiders are present. He also claims that Sweden’s definition of rape in this case is not consistent with the definition of rape in other parts of the European Union. The complainant claims she had consensual sex with Assange while he wore a condom, but was upset when she awoke to him having sex with her without a condom. Assange’s lawyer argues this would not rise to a definition of rape in most of Europe because she “let him continue”. The Swedish prosecutor says this is a classic definition of rape violating a woman’s integrity by penetration.

Assange also argues that if extradited to Sweden, the U.S. will seek his extradition and there is a real risk of his being detained at Guantanamo Bay detention center. He might even face the death penalty. Wikileaks published thousands of classified U.S. military documents. These publications are under a broad ongoing U.S. federal investigation which could subject Wikileaks and Assange to criminal prosecution in the U.S. After months of review, however, no indictments have been issued for publishing confidential documents.

Sweden refutes Assange’s arguments by claiming that Sweden’s trial proceedings are inherently fair, their definition of rape is consistent with the European Union, and a U.S. prosecution is only hypothetical at this point, and has not been established as a real risk.

Assange seems to be advancing a veiled conspiracy theory implying that the U.S. is working through the Swedish government. Assanges seems to be suggesting that Sweden is pursing these charges at the behest of the U.S. as a way to get the U.K. to extradite him to Sweden. Once in Sweden, the U.S. can extradite him from Sweden to the U.S. to punish Wikileaks and Assange for the leaks. Debate has raged whether Wikileaks has provided a public service or has done grave harm. Some think he is a freedom fighter, others think he is guilty of treason and endangering national security. Assange’s supporters include Bianca Jagger and Jemima Khan. Reportedly, some of Assange’s supporters have already nominated him for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. Some of his detractors want him stopped.

Given the political overtones of the case, and the conspiracy theory Assange is advancing, the argument before Judge Howard Riddle may have some initial sway, if not actual merit. Judge Riddle must decide whether to extradite based on whether the warrant was issued for the purpose of prosecuting or persecuting Assange on account of his political opinions. English courts have stopped extraditions on grounds of political motivation. But is this case really politically motivated? Is Sweden doing this for the U.S.? Does the U.S. need Sweden to extradite? Couldn’t the U.S. extradite Assange from the U.K. if they wanted him? If Judge Riddle orders extradition, or he doesn’t, both sides have indicated they will appeal. And an appeal to the Administrative Court can take up to three to four months. From there they can appeal to the Supreme Court if it is certified, and from there, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

If Assange is not extradited, he can still be questioned in connection with the allegations in the U.K. at the Swedish Embassy in London or by a telephone or video link that would allow him to remain in Britain. Even if Assange is not extradited, he still may be subject to extradition to the United States if and when there is ever an indictment returned. I believe the Swedish prosecutor is correct that it is too speculative and hypothetical to argue that he should not be returned to Sweden because from there he could be extradited to the U.S. As of now, the U.S. is not seeking his return. And if and when they are, I believe they can seek his extradition from Britain. As to whether he can get a fair hearing in a closed proceeding in a sex case in Sweden, it seems as if Britain would have to condemn Sweden’s judicial system procedurally by denying extradition in this case- I assume the proceedings are closed to protect the privacy of the victim, not to railroad the rights of the defendant, and that sufficient safeguards are in place to insure the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. As to the last claim, that the definition of rape is inconsistent with the other European countries’ definitions, this argument is unlikely to persuade Judge Riddle.

Assange’s best argument is that he is being persecuted for leaks, and while it has a certain ring to it, it probably lacks actual merit.

By Susan F. Filan Esq.

Lindsay Lohan:

Do you think if you were on probation for DUI and you walked out of a posh L.A. jewelry store with a one of a kind necklace around your neck without paying for it, you would still be walking around? Would anyone believe your story that the jewelry store let you walk out with the $2,500 necklace for free? I didn’t think so. CBSNews.com reports that the jewelry store owner said it did not loan the necklace to Lindsay Lohan. So put two and two together- the store did not loan Ms. Lohan the necklace. Ms. Lohan is seen wearing the necklace in the surveillance video before it was reported missing. Ms. Lohan is seen wearing the necklace in photographs that subsequently surfaced on the internet. This is reportedly how the jewelry store noticed it was gone. Once the search warrant was issued for Ms. Lohan’s home for the missing necklace, the necklace was returned to the police, the very same night.

Is there a case against Lindsay Lohan or does she have a defense to grand theft larceny? If she is arrested, this is an automatic violation of her probation. She will go back to the same judge who sentenced her– who is already on record saying that he will send her to jail if she violates her probation. She already avoided a jail sentence from this judge by going to rehab.

Do you think there is a double standard when it comes to celebrity justice? Is it time for Lindsay to go to jail or is she an addict who needs help with her disease?

Addiction is a disease but not an excuse. We enable celebrities with our worship. They need help with their disease, like anyone else, and they need to be responsible for their behavior, which is a choice, like anyone else.

Lindsay Lohan is not above the law because she is a celebrity or an addict. She needs help and she needs to be held accountable. It is time Ms. Lohan does time.

Video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I am a litigator and a mediator.

My areas of practice are Criminal Defense, Family Law, and General Practice.

I am a skilled and powerful advocate, a compassionate avenger.

Whether you have been arrested, or your family life is changing, or you have a problem in general, I can help you.

I know how the courts work, and I understand people.

I am an experienced trial lawyer, a former Connecticut state prosecutor, a professional mediator, and a sought after legal analyst for cable and television news. I appear frequently on NBC’s “The Today Show” and am MSNBC’s Senior Legal Analyst.