0
   

Charlie Sheen, his wife and the courts

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 09:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Not this Supreme Court for sure. The struggle to fix America has only just begun.


This court might just surprise both of you as the rights of a married couple in both common law and legal history had always been given great weight and respect.

The only thing that is saving this silliness and outrageous behavior of state courts is that it is normally far faster to go hat in hand and on bended knees to ask the state court judge to please please allow the marriage relationship to resume then to ask a Federal Court for an order of relief.

In any case this had zero to do with safety as if that was so at the very least non physical contact would be allow at once at the request of the non-charge party, in this case the wife.

Bill is under the opinion that you need a wise male judge to protect a woman from her own poor judgment it would seem.

One can only wonder, that is assuming that our Bill is not a gay Bill, how he would feel if some court would take it upon itself the power to end his marriage against the wishes of both him and his wife.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:02 pm
@BillRM,
this is a very activist court, which continues to move towards greater authority for the courts over individuals. I see no hope of the current court ruling to restrain the reach of it or any other court.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:23 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Not this Supreme Court for sure. The struggle to fix America has only just begun.


This court might just surprise both of you as the rights of a married couple in both common law and legal history had always been given great weight and respect.

The only thing that is saving this silliness and outrageous behavior of state courts is that it is normally far faster to go hat in hand and on bended knees to ask the state court judge to please please allow the marriage relationship to resume then to ask a Federal Court for an order of relief.

In any case this had zero to do with safety as if that was so at the very least non physical contact would be allow at once at the request of the non-charge party, in this case the wife.

Bill is under the opinion that you need a wise male judge to protect a woman from her own poor judgment it would seem.

One can only wonder, that is assuming that our Bill is not a gay Bill, how he would feel if some court would take it upon itself the power to end his marriage against the wishes of both him and his wife.
No one is trying to end anyone's marriage, you moron. Loving v. Virginia was about ending anti-miscegenation statutes and is in no way applicable to any facts reported on this thread.

In the case at bar; the State legally arrested Mr. Sheen for Domestic Violence, then legally set the standard conditions of his conditional release. It will be heard in the State court, because nowhere but your demented imagination would any other court have interest in it, let alone explicable jurisdiction. I have no idea whether it's a male judge or a female judge, but am quite confident that the standard conditions of Colorado were set without consideration of sex or marital status. You are an idiot who, apparently, never tires of proving it.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:36 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
[without consideration of sex or marital status


And it surely has nothing to do with the sex of the parties that is why you first fell back on pregnant women being kill by their partners as a justify for this silliness!
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:51 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
[without consideration of sex or marital status


And it surely has nothing to do with the sex of the parties that is why you first fell back on pregnant women being kill by their partners as a justify for this silliness!
Paragraphs are used to separate points, moron. That separate point is the single best explanation for why there are No Contact Orders in DV situations, probably in every state in the union, but it is by no means the only reason.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:55 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
That separate point is the single best explanation for why there are No Contact Orders in DV situations, probably in every state in the union, but it is by no means the only reason


You can try to pretty up this pig all you want, we all know that it boils down to the courts thinking that they know better what is best for people than the people do, and then imposing its will with the assistance of the police.

It is disgraceful that America has come to this.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:00 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
To show how silly we are becoming in the case of the NY mayor with his thrown cardboard box of tea when his wife did showed up in court and asked for this protection for her “benefit/safest” to be removed and also declare that she was in no fear of her husband it was the DA who objected.

This seem to be a nice tool to help the prosecutor more then anything else as once more no one can be physical harm over the phone so there is zero justification for a ban on communications against both parties wills.

BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
It is disgraceful that America has come to this.


Agree..........
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:08 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
points, moron.


You seem on your face to be not only an unpleasant person but an angry man full of hate for anyone who would dare to disagree with you.

Hopefully some court will take note of the likely danger you could be toward women, children and pets and ban you from being around them just to be on the safe side.

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:21 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hopefully some court will take note of the likely danger you could be toward women, children and pets and ban you from being around them just to be on the safe side


It is men not women that Bill hates, so you are wrong there, but ya.....Bill does not understand that once you allow the state to go after people that the majority does not like it is only a matter of time until the state starts going after you, your friends, or your family.

It is the Constitution and the process of a functioning democracy that I want to protect, not abusers and/or killers. We the people of this imperfect union need to wake up, and realize that we are giving away our power, and that eventually it will be used against us. Hell, it already is, look at how much power the corporate class has collected. They even now have the Supreme Court backing them in their assault upon the increasingly powerless masses.

Bill, as always, has no concept of the relative importance of things. He is uneducated, in spite of him continually thinking that he knows more than anyone else...a typical condescending though thoroughly ignorant liberal.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:23 pm
@BillRM,
This is because you are an idiot who doesn't understand the word coercion.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:28 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
points, moron.


You seem on your face to be not only an unpleasant person but an angry man full of hate for anyone who would dare to disagree with you.

Hopefully some court will take note of the likely danger you could be toward women, children and pets and ban you from being around them just to be on the safe side.

I despise misogynistic pieces of **** like you and Shorteyes, mostly because the person I love most in this world has suffered untold horrors at the hands of one. Regard me as you please.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 04:05:38