Charlie Sheen, his wife and the courts

the laws being applied here are NOT gender specific.)

Quote:

Sheen's problems are with the State. So too would hers be if she violates a court order.

We agree the state is using it powers to keep a wife from talking to her husband against her will and you see nothing wrong with so doing.

Shame on you.

Wrong again, moron. That is an incidental result of the Court's no contact order stemming from charges of domestic violence. Their marital status, like their respective sexes, are wholly immaterial to the case at bar.

Quote:

Wrong again, moron. That is an incidental result of the Court's no contact order stemming from charges of domestic violence. Their marital status, like their respective sexes, are wholly immaterial to the case at bar.

wrong again moron. A marriage contract implies desire for contact. The collective is not free to negate individual will when ever it wants. It must prove significant harm to either the collective or to kids in the relationship before it removes the individuals constitutional rights to free association. The court can rightly only impose no contact orders when it is doing so to protect an individual whom desires protection, the kids, or the collective. None of the three apply to this case.

Wrong again, moron. That is an incidental result of the Court's no contact order stemming from charges of domestic violence. Their marital status, like their respective sexes, are wholly immaterial to the case at bar.

Quote:

Wrong again, moron. That is an incidental result of the Court's no contact order stemming from charges of domestic violence. Their marital status, like their respective sexes, are wholly immaterial to the case at bar.

BULLSHIT and we both know it...........

It was nice however for the judge did not charged Sheen with going to his wife side and holding her hands when she was in the hospital.

Hell, this prince of a judge even allows him to stay and oh, my god talks to his wife until she was released from medical care.

This is complete nonsense and the “victim” is the one being harm by not having the support of her husband as she recover from her illness and go into rehabilitation treatments for her drug and alcohol problems.

This is shameful and over the top.

The strength of your shared conviction does nothing to make it less nonsensical.

This doesn't change the fact that you idiots are wrong about whether or not that is legally his decision to make, or that sex or marital status played a roll in the court using its standard conditions at the bail hearing. The strength of your shared conviction does nothing to make it less nonsensical.

Let see as the order apply to his wife it is not just a part of a bail for him my silly friend. Bail conditions does not place conditions on third parties. So saying over and over it part of his bail does not change the fact that she is under a court order to the same degree as he is

Quote:

This doesn't change the fact that you idiots are wrong about whether or not that is legally his decision to make, or that sex or marital status played a roll in the court using its standard conditions at the bail hearing. The strength of your shared conviction does nothing to make it less nonsensical.

Let see as the order apply to his wife it is not just a part of a bail for him my silly friend. Bail conditions does not place conditions on third parties. So saying over and over it part of his bail does not change the fact that she is under a court order to the same degree as he is.

Second here is part of the words of the Supreme Court dealing with the important of being able to be in a married to who ever you please without the state interfering. Something that this order is clearly taking away from both of them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Updated at 8:58 p.m. Dec. 25, 2009: Sheen was released from Pitkin County Jail around 7 p.m. Friday after posting an $8,500 bond, said Stephanie Dasaro, a spokeswoman with the Aspen Police Department. He is scheduled to appear at the Pitkin County Courthouse on Feb. 8, 2010.

The release also carries "standard domestic violence bond conditions," the department statement said.

In Colorado, those conditions include no contact with the victim, the victim's family or any witnesses; no harassing or intimidation of the victim; no entry to the family residence until further order of the court; no consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs; and no possession of guns or other weapons. Arrest on any subsequent criminal offense would be seen as a bail violation, and violation of the conditions of the bond may be deemed contempt of court and could lead to a fine or jail time.

Updated at 6:39 p.m.: The prosecutor in the case intends to fight the requests from both sides to dismiss the protective order, OK! Magazine reports. "We always oppose lifting the protection order," Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Arnold Mordkin told the magazine, bringing particular attention in this instance to the bans against using alcohol or drugs or possessing a firearm.]

Quote:

Let see as the order apply to his wife it is not just a part of a bail for him my silly friend. Bail conditions does not place conditions on third parties. So saying over and over it part of his bail does not change the fact that she is under a court order to the same degree as he is

I am pretty sure that you are not correct here, I think that the wife is not under any legal obligation to stay away from sheen, but that if she attempts to gain contact sheen is obligated to resist contact to the best of his ability.

Quote:

Updated at 6:39 p.m.: The prosecutor in the case intends to fight the requests from both sides to dismiss the protective order, OK! Magazine reports. "We always oppose lifting the protection order," Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Arnold Mordkin told the magazine, bringing particular attention in this instance to the bans against using alcohol or drugs or possessing a firearm.]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/charlie-sheen/

Individuals and facts of the case be damned, of course. The state MUST attempt to roll over the individuals regardless.

It wouldn't be outlandish if Sheen claimed she was the aggressor, which he allegedly has.

Quote:

It wouldn't be outlandish if Sheen claimed she was the aggressor, which he allegedly has.

both parties agree that it is the state through the court which is the aggressor

This too is standard,

It reality does not matter if they would jail the wife or not as they are keeping them apart against both of their clear and stated wishes by threats directed at the husband and perhaps the wife.

The state have zero moral rights and when and if it get to the Supreme Court I question if legally to interfere once more against the wish of both parties in a marriage.

They are taking away the wife rights as must or more then the husband and this is outrageous as can be.

I have no problem if the wife had wish the order to be in place or the condition of bail or whatever but under the conditons that where the wife does wish normal contacts with her husband I have great problems with it.

The Supreme Court will not be weighing in on this nonsense. The lower court will lift the order when it sees fit.