LOL!!! You mean like flakmag.com??? The site who's staffers appear on Airamerica?? That's some fair non-partisan political commentary you're getting your info from right there, my friend. Before you attack my 1000 posts for it's "information value", check your 2000 first. What you find may surprise you. Good day. J
my favorite source is the conservative Washington Times.... now who owns that...hmmmm, i forget. LOL LOL LOL
I think this conversation should be handled by a widely watched and just person well versed in perverted adventures. Bill O'Reilly now there is a stand up perv who is well versed in this area. Not to mention the fine "Firm and Convinced" right wing channel he works for.
This sort of restraining order is routine in family courts across the U.S., ever since Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which provides federal funds to state governments who pass legislation permitting emergency civil restraining orders with automatic arrest and incarceration provisions for violation of their proximity conditions. Since the early 1990s when this legislation was first enacted, women have routinely used these emergency orders to walk into court with no supporting evidence other than their own written declaration (crafted by their attorney, of course), and they nearly always walk out with a 21-day order against their spouse/partner which prevents that person from entering their own home or having any contact with their own children. After the 21-days, a hearing is held, where the man gets to try to challenge the restraining order. However, it's nearly impossible to challenge the order, because the only thing required to have it ordered by the court, is testimony from the woman that she is afraid of her spouse/partner. So, while Ms. Richard's vitriolic display of animus is compelling, it is completely unnecessary. She could have just as easily written: "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my name is Denise Richards, and I am afraid of Charles Sheen," and she would have received the automatic restraining order. About the only way that a person can defeat one of these orders is for the woman to simply change her mind and want to see her spouse/partner, or in some cases, if the spouse/partner submits to a polygraph on each and every allegation in the declaration and offers it to the court as proof of truthfulness, and the woman agrees to allow the evidence in (which will never happen if the woman is represented by an attorney), then the judge may call bullshit and set the order aside. The point is, that Mr. Sheen may have done all these horrible things, and he may not. But, there isn't actually a shred of credible evidence appearing in the declaration -- no third party witnesses, no police coming to the scene, no bruises on her person, no NOTHING -- just a sheet of 8.5 X 11 stating that she's afraid of Mr. Sheen and presto -- he is completely eliminated from his children's lives until Ms. Richards decides otherwise. For someone like Charlie, who has unlimited financial resources and media access, he can at least go to a nice hotel and not be inconvenienced. But, for the routine victim spouse/partner (almost always male), he gets 20 minutes while being monitored by a county sheriff's officer, to get his personal possessions (clothes) out of the family home, and then he must immediately try to figure where he will spend the remainder of his existence, because it definitely won't be in the home, that he likely has made all of the payments on, including the purchase money down. Anyways, I thought that some background on this sort of thing would be in order, before you go beating each other up. Like I said, Charlie may be a danger to Denise, and even a danger to his own kids. But, as for the actual proof of this -- at the moment, there isn't any. If you are ever actually subjected to one of these restraining orders, you will immediately understand what I'm talking about, and you will remember reading it here first. You will wonder what happened to the Bill of Rights, while you're sitting on the curb in front of McDonalds. Note: I have never had one of these orders imposed on me, however, ironically, I actually managed to get a judge to give one to me, against a woman, once upon a time. The judge thought I was nuts, but he still had to grant it, at least for the 21 days, because I said I was afraid of the woman. That's all it takes.
Actor Charlie Sheen denies abuse charges by ex-wife Sat Apr 22, 9:46 PM ET Actor Charlie Sheen on Saturday denied charges from his estranged wife, actress Denise Richards, that he had been abusive toward her and their daughters and had threatened to kill her. "I move forward and I maintain my integrity ... and focus on my children," Sheen told Entertainment Tonight co-anchor Mark Steines in an interview for the Paramount Pictures Corp. program to be aired on April 24. On Friday, Sheen was ordered to keep at least 300 feet (90 meters) away from Richards and their two young daughters after the abuse allegations were made in court papers. The restraining order is the latest chapter in the stormy marriage between Sheen, a one-time playboy, and model/actress Richards, 35, who filed for divorce from him last December, after less than three years of marriage. Sheen, star of the hit CBS television series "Two and a Half Men," told Entertainment Tonight Richards' filing is a "heinous document of fiction." "I'm deeply saddened because this is clearly demonstrating a wanting and willful attempt at what I describe as a radical and transparent smear campaign and clearly a departure from sound, sane, responsible co-parenting," Sheen said. "It is a reaction to a failed marriage, a reaction to some twisted desire -- real or imagined -- to hurt, to punish, to discredit, to completely torpedo, to undermine my perception as a responsible father ... a contributing father, a guy who would give his life for his children." Sheen was reacting to Richards' written declaration that she could "no longer accept (his) abusive and threatening manner and must stop him from the cycle of his abuse toward me and our children and his continued threats of violence and statements that he is going to kill me." Richards is "the only one entirely culpable for putting these radical allegations out for public consumption ... my children included," Sheen told Entertainment Tonight. Richards also alleged Sheen, son of actor Martin Sheen, abused prescription drugs, gambled compulsively, frequented prostitutes and liked to look at pornography on the Internet.
One of my closest friends got divorced several years ago. He and and his wife had 2 young children and in order to bolster her custody case she accused him of molesting them. This guy would no more molest a child than cut off his own fingers. This woman that he thought he knew, that he had loved and had children with, made him out to be a monster, when she was the actual monster, making such a horrible false accusation, one that could have ruined his life. People can come to believe their own lies and outsiders rarely ever know the truth in these matters. H
Can we apply the same standards of fairness to Ritter that you've applied to Kobe and Michael Jackson, neither of whom were found guilty by their peers. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=577350&highlight=wacko#post577350 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=576524&highlight=kobe+rape#post576524 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=576504&highlight=kobe+rape#post576504 Obviously because of your life of whitness in KKKalifornia you view African-Americans as sexual psycopaths while treating anti-war whites like Ritter and Sheen as "normal" folk who the big bad Bush is smearing.
All were given their day in the justice system. What is not fair? At least in Kobe's case and with Jackson, the evidence was not kept from view, and they were not victims of government stings. Ritter was the target of a smear campaign by the government, pure and simple. Kobe and Jackson may have been the victim of individual efforts that were not honest or may have been motivated by eventual financial gain...but not a product of your Bush administration who tried to discredit Ritter for political reasons.... Oh, and... Your comments of KKKalifornia, very worthy of an ET moderator....sure they are.