ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Diane Hathaway must have wanted to pinch herself, wake up from the nightmare and return to her prestigious perch in life, sitting on the state Supreme Court.

She couldn’t have imagined it would have ended like this.

But here she was, the daughter of a Detroit cop, educated in the city, standing in disgrace Tuesday morning in federal court in Ann Arbor, like a common defendant, pleading guilty to bank fraud as a gallery full of media members looked on including Ross Jones of WXYZ, who broke the story about her financial scheme. Her husband Michael J. Kingsley, an attorney, was also on hand as was U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade.

U.S. District Judge John Corbett O’Meara set sentencing for May 28 at 2 p.m. She faces up to 18 months, but could conceivably get probation.

Hathaway pleaded guilty to a real estate scheme in which she transferred properties out of her name to make it look as if she had less assets, all so she could get a short sale on her Grosse Pointe Park home and get out of $600,000 she owed the bank. The original mortgage was $1.4 million.

To read more click here.

Opening statements in Jefferson trial/courtesy of Art Lien/NBC News

Bruce Alpert, the star reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court Monday refused to take the appeal of Jefferson’s 2009 corruption conviction.

Jefferson, 65, is serving his sentence in Beaumont, Tex., and isn’t set to be released until 2023.

To read more click here.

exRep. Jefferson at sentencing in 2009 /Sketch by Art Lien/NBC News

WASHINGTON — in what is likely the last chance to overturn his 13-year prison sentence for public corruption, former Rep. William Jefferson is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to schedule arguments on whether the trial judge gave an overly expansive definition of a congressman’s duties.

The question is central, attorneys for Jefferson said in a filing Wednesday, because the congressman was convicted almost entirely on bribery and bribery-related charges that require the government to show the defendant performed an “official act” in return for something of value.

To read the full story click here.

OTHER STORIES OF INTEREST

• Man Pleads Guilty in Ohio Bridge Bomb Plot
• Ex-Diamondbacks Manager Helped FBI in Insider Investigation
• “Plain Jane” Bank Robber Sought by FBI
• DOJ to Seek New Indictment of Blackwater Guards
• FBI Raids Producers of ‘Bath Salts’ in New Crackdown
• Death Toll Reaches 15 in Texas Human Smuggling Crash

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

The big guys and gals have weighed in on the matter and Secret Service has come out on top.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday unanimously in favor of two Secret Service agents, saying they can’t be sued, according to the New York Times.

The court ruled against a Colorado protestor, who was suing the agents for violating his free speech and arresting him in 2006 after he made critical remarks to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Times wrote of the Supreme Court ruling, which reversed a Court of Appeals decision:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying the Secret Service agents could not be sued. They were entitled, (Clarence) Thomas wrote, to the qualified immunity available to government officials when the legal principle said to bar their conduct was not “clearly established.” The court did not decide whether the First Amendment in fact allows retaliatory arrests in such circumstances.

To read more click here.

By Allan Lengel

It’s fair to surmise that the FBI has a surplus of GPS devices that are just going to be sitting around.

The Wall Street Journal reports that FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann said at a conference Friday that a Supreme Court ruling requiring a court order before placing a GPS on someone’s car has prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS devices that were in use.

Weissmann made his comments at a University of San Francisco conference called “Big Brother in the 21st Century.”

The Journal reports that the devices were often placed underneath cars to track movements.

The Supreme Court has ruled and the FBI is responding.

USA Today reports that the FBI has started cutting back on the use of GPS surveillance in wake of a Jan. 23 Supreme Court ruling which said law enforcement needs court authorization to attach a GPS to a vehicle.

The paper reported that the FBI implemented the change the day after the court ruling which said that mounting the device secretly on a car amounted to a search protected by the Fourth Amendment.

To read more click here. 

By Danny Fenster

As Herman Cain knows, it’s a fine line between a friendly pat on the shoulder and a little too much touching. Now, Steven Howards will find out the same.

On Monday the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether or not Howards can sue the Secret Service for denying his right to free speech when protecting then-vice president Dick Cheney during a 2006 incident in Colorado.

At a mall in Beaver Creek, Colo., a Secret Service agent said he heard Howards speaking into his cellphone, describing his plan to ask the vice president “how many kids he’s killed today,” according to the New York Times. Howards later approached Cheney, telling him his administration’s “policies in Iraq are disgusting,” then touched Cheney on the shoulder.

The shoulder tap has been variously described as a pat, a slap and a strike, which caused Cheney’s shoulder to dip, according to the Times. When agents confronted Howards he denied touching the vice president and said “if you don’t want other people sharing their opinions, you should have him avoid public places.” He was then arrested for assault and given to local authorities, charged with harassment–charges which were later dropped.

A federal district judge in Denver ruled that the suit against the agents could proceed.  A three-panel on the Court of Appeals subsequently reversed some of that ruling, saying that agents had a right to arrest Howards after he touched Cheney. Conversely, it ruled that the Howards’s claim for retaliatory arrest could  proceed to trial, saying his First Amendment rights may have been violated because agents could have been “substantially motivated” to take action against him based on his remarks, the Times reported.

The Supreme Court will now take on this touchy issue.

To read more click here.