TVSquad

Wow! That should you here is the Feds heading to Charlies house to grab his comuters.

That might be the end for Two and a half men.

Reply

I knew he was a nut when he said all those false claims about the 9/11 attacks and reading the report he confirms he is a big conspiracy nut.

Reply

hehehe
this sounds like something judith would do to alan, and charlie would laugh mercilessly about

Reply

It didn't say he was looking at child porn, it said he was looking at what APPEARED to his ex-wife to be child porn. And I seriously doubt that. There's plenty of sites online that have women playing dressup. Which makes a lot more sense, given Charlie Sheen's known appreciation of prostitutes. Denise Richards would have my sincerest sympathies if she hadn't manipulated what she said to make Charlie Sheen look like as bad a human being as possible.

Reply

True Vito,
It said he was looking at shaved young women, which our governent is thinking about putting those images under the term child porn.

Also we learned that Denise doesn't shave if she sees doesn't understand that.

Reply

Richards said that that images didn't look like adults. That means they looked like children. Charlie Sheen likes to look at naked children

Download the PDF VERSION of Charlie Sheen / Denise Richards' Court Docs:

http://www.pretendpundit.com/2006/04/charlie_sheen_i.html

Reply

I have an ex-husband who was into all the same things she says Charlie is in to. I believe every word she says about what was going on. THE SAD thing is that many many Men are being swept away by sexual perversions and the so called harmless pornography habit that (just like drugs) leads you to need bigger and bigger thrills and mental images till looking at child porn must be the climax of the addiction. Will becoming a pedafile be the next step?Those who defend this kind of stuff must be looking at the porn themselves. I am not condemning these men but it would be nice if a loud voice came forth to loudly broadcast that this kind of stuff is destroying marriages and is a sickness that needs a cure. Denise Richards obviously loved him, had two children by him and just wanted a happy family. NO intelligent woman can put up with this forever. Denise-- hang in there.... YOu did the right thing..

Reply

Few Judges deny restraining orders to plaintiffs regardless of content, and the allegations are not researched, or require proof of the alledgations, and are granted anyway. Few juridictions require both parties to be present at a "hearing" to obtain a restraining order, therefore, there would not be a forum for Charlie Sheen to challenge such an order. He would simply be left with the aftermath of the action by his spouse, and that is what is happening to him. In the State of Washington, King County, both parties to a restraining order are "heard" before a Judge. I am uncertain about California, but it would seem there is no such requirement. Restraining orders are granted via Juris "prudence" not based on a predonderence of evidence as to the reality of the allegations, simply the request supported by allegations that do not have to be true. I think that it is a stretch to believe the allegations, and if Ms. Richards states that the "girls APPEAR to be underage" how is it that she did not look farther, since she had the page open? To have sites embedded in the hard drive of any computer logged onto by the owner, only requires that the pages be visited by anyone using the computer and as such can certainly be placed there to entrap by anyone. There is way too much ugliness in divorce just on the face of it without creating any more ugliness. I believe it is Richards who should have the eye of suspicion on her. The burden of proof is still on the accuser in this country. I could go on but this is enough! Enough, all ready. Denise, close your mouth, stay away, and proceed with your divorce as amicably as you possibly can, it is not really about you now that you have children - think of them - some day they will read what you have done to their father and children internalize, and personalize the things said about their parents. They will read your words as if it were them. Not a wonderful motherly thing to do. Proceed with caution and forethought, or turn your children against yourself in the final analysis. It is their father you are talking about.....

Reply

No she did not, especially considering her children.

Reply

Re-read your own comments. You appear to be illiterate and your words (spellings) make no sense.

Reply

Where's the proof, Pretendpundit? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck does not apply here. Please read my response to the current order obtained by Ms Richards.

Reply

Charlie Sheen is guilty. You don't even have to ask for proof. His past behavior was most likely why the judge granted Denise a restraining order. What I can't believe people aren't talking about is Denise Richards and Richie Sambora???? I thought Heather was Denise's good friend? Did Denise steal Richie from Heather and Heather found out and that is why they are divorcing? This divorce announcement was much more shocking than Denise and Charlie. I would love to hear from Heather Locklear. This is much more interesting than Charlie Sheen who way know has always behaved badly!

Reply

Where were these allegations before Charlie went public with his 9/11 skepticism? Looks suspiciously like a classic swift-boating to me. Sheen has made quite an impact when he made his doubts about 9/11 publicly known.

As someone going through a bitter separation myself, I keep in mind that what one party charges the other with is usually embellished. Her opinions are the perverted ones. In her papers, she said Sheen pushed her down and wished her dead. I don't believe that is a death threat. Emotions run high during custody cases. Both sides have been known to come out swinging until eventually those listening to the allegations conclude that neither parent is fit. Charlie Sheen did Denise Richards a favor in not turning the tables on her. He showed a lot of character, integrity and class by limiting his comments to concern for his children.

Reply

To Kat from April 25th: excellent commentary, particularly your closing sentence (supported by the preceeding comment). A thinker you are, and it is so refreshing to see someone who can spell and express themselves without flagrant, emotion, bashing of the parties involved. Thank you.

Reply