A Superior Court judge on Friday signed a judgment that awarded $216,837 along with $39,177 in interest to the Torrance firm of Ayscough & Marar, according to court records.

Jackson’s attorney, Marshall Brubacher, agreed in principle to the judgment on July 26, when he told the judge that going to trial would be costlier and “we want to stop the hemorrhaging.”

The law firm sued Jackson for failing to pay legal fees for preventing the release of some information to the public and to lawyers in civil cases during Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial in Santa Barbara County.

Jackson was eventually acquitted of child molestation charges.

Jackson countersued the law firm but that case was dismissed.

Ayscough & Marar also helped defend Jackson against a lawsuit that claimed the pop star owed $1.4 million to his former business associated, Marc Schaffel.

Last year, a jury awarded Schaffel $900,000 and awarded Jackson $200,000 in a countersuit against Schaffel.

``She came to accept that what she did was wrong,'' defense lawyer William Massey said before the hearing. ``She stood very firmly, for a very long time, in her belief that she was not guilty.''

In exchange for her plea, prosecutors dropped five more serious charges of extortion, each carrying a maximum of 20 years in prison.

In a 2 to 1 decision in March, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's prohibition against residents keeping handguns in their homes is unconstitutional. In May, the full appeals court declined a petition from the city to reconsider the panel's decision.

Some gun control advocates have cautioned that a defeat in the Supreme Court could lead to tough gun laws being overturned in major cities, including New York, Chicago and Detroit. Fenty said the District had no choice but to fight because more guns in homes could lead to increases in violent crime and deadly accidents.

"The handgun ban has saved many lives and will continue to do so if it remains in effect," Fenty said. "Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, 'Mayor Fenty, you've got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.' "

Gun rights advocates welcomed the chance to take the fight to the high court. A central question the D.C. case poses is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to keep and bear arms.

Experts say gun rights advocates have never had a better chance for a major Second Amendment victory, because a significant number of justices on the Supreme Court have indicated a preference for the individual-rights interpretation.

"Any accurate, unbiased reading of American history is going to come down to this being an individual right," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "To deny people the right to own a firearm in their home for personal protection is simply out of step with the Constitution."

The city's three-decade-old gun ban was challenged by six D.C. residents -- backed by the libertarian Cato Institute -- who said they wanted to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence, but it has come under attack in Congress and in the courts.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the issue, in Miller v. the United States, is considered by many to define the right to bear arms as being given to militias, not to individuals.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the residents' lawsuit -- Parker v. the District of Columbia-- several years ago, ruling that the amendment was tailored to membership in a militia.

But the appeals panel ruled in March that the District has a right to regulate and require registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks.

"We're very pleased the case will go to the Supreme Court," said Alan Gura, an attorney for the residents. "We believe it will hear the case and will affirm that the Bill of Rights does protect the individual."

Singer said she will receive pro bono legal assistance from several high-profile constitutional law experts, including former acting solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger III. She called the city's handgun laws "reasonable" and said many handguns are used in illegal activities.

"This is not a law which takes away the rights to keep and bear arms," Dellinger said. "It regulates one kind of weapon: handguns."

Singer said she will ask for a 30-day extension to file the District's appeal with the Supreme Court, which would push the deadline to Sept. 5. The city's handgun laws will remain in effect throughout the appeal, Singer said.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear this case, it could produce the most significant Second Amendment ruling in our history," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. "If the U.S. Supreme Court follows the words of the U.S. Constitution and the Court's own precedents, it should reverse the Appeals Court ruling and allow the District's law to stand."

Instead, the Atwoods' home was sold at a sheriff's auction in 1997 to American Land Investments because of the delinquent bill. The couple have won several court challenges since then and hope to withstand one more appeal over the property.

The State Tax Commission eventually nullified the 1997 sale, but when the Atwoods tried to sell the house in 2002, they discovered that American Land Investments had sold the property rights to Jamie Land Co., which then sued the Atwoods.

James A. Lindsay II, the company's president, said his rights were violated when the tax commission didn't inform him of its decision.

Without a clear title, the couple couldn't sell the house. Then in 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck. Dolores Atwood said they didn't have insurance, and because of the title, they didn't qualify for federal rebuilding help.

"I don't know how much more I can endure," said Atwood, 69, who lives in a FEMA trailer in front of the still-damaged home north of Slidell. Her husband, 71 and on a respirator, lives with relatives. She said the couple had been through "seven years of emotional hell."

In May 2006, a judge ruled that the property title belongs to the Atwoods. Last month, a state appeals court panel upheld the decision. Jamie Land asked the court to rehear the case, but that request was denied last week.

Now, the company plans to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to take up the case. Lindsay said he doesn't want the Atwoods to suffer, but "I have rights too," adding that the commission gave him no notice when it annulled the tax sale.

"I don't owe him 50 cents," Delores Atwood said, "not with what he's put me through."

A Kremlin spokesman has promised a "targeted" response to Britain's expulsion of four Russian diplomats, raising the stakes in a dispute over the murder probe of a former KGB spy.

Russian deputy foreign minister Alexander Grushko briefed reporters in Moscow Tuesday, a day after Britain announced the explusions. Grushko told the Itar-Tass news agency to anticipate the Russian government's response to Britain's "provocative" move "in the very near future."

Grushko said it would be a "targeted and appropriate" response, but would not give further details other than to add that Russia's action would take into account "the interests of ordinary people and businessmen."

Analysts have said it is likely Russia will reciprocate by evicting British diplomats in Russia, but that they will stop short of hitting back at British business interests in Russia — a move that could be costly for both countries.

Meanwhile in London, a spokesman with the Foreign Office told reporters that "no reprisal on behalf of Russia would be justified."

The diplomatic row is rooted in the British investigation into the slaying of former KGB spy and fierce Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned by the radioactive isotope polonium-210 while dining at a London hotel on Nov. 1, 2006.

British prosecutors believe that Andrei Lugovoi, another former KGB agent who met with Litvinenko that day, is a prime suspect and they want him extradited to stand trial in London.

But Russia has refused to co-operate, arguing that it is against its constitution to extradite citizens wanted for crimes in foreign nations.

In retaliation, Britain's Foreign Ministry announced Monday that it was ordering four Russian diplomats to leave London to show the country is serious about prosecuting Lugovoi for what British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called a "heinous" crime.

"This response is proportional and it is clear at whom it is aimed," Miliband said Monday.

Britain has reportedly sent a list of four names threatened with expulsions to Russian officials, but Russia said it would wait for Britain to follow through with the expulsions before acting.

AT&T has lost an attempt to block a class-action lawsuit which is suing the carrier for alleged over-charging roaming fees. AT&T, known at the time as Cingular Wireless had tried to argue before Washington State's Supreme Court that the customers had signed a contract which included a clause forbidden the customer from starting a class-action lawsuit, but the court decided that the clause was unfair and sent the case back to the trial court in King County where it began.

The lawsuit was filed back in 2004 against Cingular has claimed that the carrier advertised free roaming in areas covered by AT&T Wireless - which at the time was actually a separate company - but charged customers for the roaming service. It is claimed that Cingular had overcharged customers between $1 and $40 per month.

Public Justice, America's public interest law firm, based in Washington, DC which represented the customers, argued that Cingular's class action ban is "unconscionable" under state law because it forces customers to arbitrate their individually-small claims one-by-one and denies them the option of acting as a group with a common grievance for any reason. Public Justice also argued that federal law does not trump state laws that preclude companies from barring class actions in contract provisions.

"This decision is likely to have a significant influence on the way other courts think about this issue," said Paul Bland of Public Justice, who argued the appeal. "A number of courts around the country are wrestling with this issue right now, and the Washington Supreme Court's opinion is so thoughtful and well-reasoned that it is likely to persuade many other courts to also protect consumer rights."

In striking down the class action ban, the court emphasized that, if Cingular's customers couldn't bring a class action, they would be prevented from pursuing valid claims against the company. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Tom Chambers stated that, if enforced, Cingular's class action ban would "effectively den[y] large numbers of consumers the protection of Washington's Consumer Protection Act."

The court also recognized that class actions are necessary to "strongly deter future similar wrongful conduct, which benefits the community as a whole."