Friday, March 05, 2010

Charlie Sheen Better Get Used To That Felony Charge

Charlie Sheen is not the only domestic violence case to hit Aspen in recent times. There have been so many in fact that the District Attorney there has decided he needs to get tough on all domestic violence charges, especially those which involved drugs or alcohol. What does this mean for Charlie? According to Radar Online, this means that there is no possibility of a plea deal for Charlie which doesn't include a felony. Currently he is charged with one felony and two misdemeanors. His attorney previously said Charlie would only plea to misdemeanors. Looks like there is going to be a trial then because that felony charge is going to stay. Oh, how I would love a trial. Everyday a new girlfriend dragged from Charlie's past who has to tell the truth about Charlie and his actions. It will be weeks and weeks of glorious testimony. Hell, bring out Heidi Fleiss too. Let us just get all of this out in the open and see what we have been missing all these years.


Anonymous said...

**snickering and rubbing my hands together in glee**

Merlin D. Bear said...

Ummmm...homosexual with a question, homosexual with a question!
Bearing in mind that my experience with the law comes exclusively from TV and movies, (Bless you, Perry Mason and LA Law), in the unlikely (yeah you read that right, unlikely - you think for a hot second the studio is going to risk losing Sheen to prison? Didn't think so either) event of a trial, are they allowed to bring up previous instances like this by direct testimony even if there's no police record? I understand that if the prosecution brings it up the defense can challenge, and the best way is through live testimony, however since it's not Federal, can they cross state lines like that to bring in previous partners ?
Regardless, I still see this as so not happening because there's gonna be an assload of money changing hands, from the studios to anyone Charlie's ever shtupped or struck.
I bet Denise is just waiting on that check, too.

Anonymous said...

Merlin, I work in a law firm but we don't do criminal law. One time, however, I was on a jury for a criminal trial. We acquitted the guy, despite a strong feeling that he would probably mug us on our way to our cars when we left the courthouse, because the prosecution just did not present a case. After the trial, the judge informed us that he had been convicted several times for similar incidents to what his trial was about, but that he could not tell us about them in this trial.

A lot of what gets brought into court depends on pretrial motions and motions in limine and the ruling on those depends on the judge. And every state has different laws. But my guess would be, probably they can not bring in unrelated testimony. If anyone here is more familiar with this I would be happy to be corrected.

Lady J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lady J said...

I do not believe that old allegations/situations can be brought up but I am not sure. Usually the court is not allowed to bring up old circumstances unless it they are directly involved or bears some significance with the current case. If any of Charlie's old girlfriends pressed charges then it might be possible to show that this behavior has been consistent over the years and jail may be the best solution for him. Considering the women he dealt with were NO ANGELS themselves Sheen may try to flip everything onto them. Time will tell.

Himmmm said...

Nice thought be it'll NEVER happen.
Too many people have too much to lose (like CBS/VIACOM) to see their golden fuckstick get slammed.

Not to mention those who stand to lose MILLIONS in their own careers by having Sheen's open sores be brought to light in testimony.

Kelly Preston anyone? She and the CoS would have Sheen killed before he'd be questioned in open court about HER and her past.

People like the Judges and DA and others have to be elected to office. The big wigs who own the ski resorts and others support them via contributions. NO elected official will risk offending the rich celebs and CEOs who support them - and who are shareholders in CBS- just to burn Sheen.

So the DA will get BIG campaign money at election time, and maybe even an upgrade to state office or as a Congressman in exchange for playing ball. After all - Hollywood put Obama in office, and two calls: ONE to Ari Emanuel and the next to his brother RHAM will get the DA promoted or promoted to the Justice Dept. in return for playing along.

So while we dream of this criminal being served justice? It just won't happen. Not in America today - where celebs are gods. Nobody will derail that money train. Who cares about a few dead hookers anyway? A little cocaine? So what? A few ruined kids? Big deal. That's their thinking.

Maybe he'll kill himself, if we're lucky.

nancer said...

i have a friend familiar with aspen. they don't play. she said from day one he wouldn't get off easy there and it sounds to me like she may be right.

allisonshine said...

Damn. This would be the best hollywood movie ever. Starring, Charlie Sheen. Hell, bring out the whole family. Martin, his brother Emilio. Denise.


Can't wait to see how this whole thing plays out.

Majik said...

lmao @ "glorious testimony".

Kara said...

I am a criminal defense attorney.

The uniform evidence code that has been adopted by the feds is the basis for pretty much every state's evidence code as well.

Character evidence is generally inadmissible. NONE of this stuff would come in unless it fell into a very small, defined parameter (motive, modus operandi, intent, etc). So basically, no. You do not get to put on evidence that he's a jerk to try and prove that he likely menaced and assaulted his wife that night.

UNLESS - some past aggressive behaviors can come in (in Oregon) to show the reasonableness of the victim's belief that he was actually threatening her. But that's a very big UNLESS.

B626 said...

Now THAT's Entertainment!

braverwoman said...

Getting a big-time Phil Spector vibe off Charlie. Hopefully it won't come to the point where a woman is murdered before the court realizes what a psycho he is.

Sue Ellen Mishkey said...


You might know something about H'Wood, but you don't know shit about politics. If H'Wood was so influential in getting people elected, then why did Dubya get elected/re-elected when(most) celebs were pulling for Kerry and Gore? I don't buy it.

Also, you don't become a member of Congress because the lobbyists say so. Sure, their money might help as far as campaigns go, but they aren't putting you there without the votes of the constituents. Madison et al did a real good job of ensuring factions couldn't rise up and become tyrannical over the minority, so I don't buy your logic up there. That being said, you're probably right about the outcome of this.

Himmmm said...


Sue Ellen, you make me smile. I love arguments about LOGIC.
But whenever someone wishes to challenge me on anything, I don't become offended.

One quick question Sue: Do you know who Terry Lenzner is? Don't Google it or WIki it. Do you know?
How about Richard Mellon Sciafe? Or maybe Herb Allen? We'll come back to that.

Not sure of your basis for questioning my "knowing shit" about politics, but - if you re-read - my comments were not about politics...they were about a specific system of criminal justice and spoils/rewards, and how interests are protected.

Granted you could apply the realm of politics to that - just as easily as you could evolutionary biology; anthropology; and even the application of more specific manipulative tools such as "Darwinian Economics" by way of the Nash Equilibrium and Game Theory. Or politico-industrial dynamics in a hyper-media state.

However, I may have misunderstood your comment. Were you referring to actual politics, as in political science and the application of history, laws, and evolutionary government? Or was your reference to "politics" based upon a passing observation of politics in mass media, tabloid/gossip public opinion games, and/or "politics as theater and entertainment" (aka The Bored Housewife-Votes-Based-On-Scale-of-Cuteness-or-what-Oprah-says)?

While I freely admit that my depth of understanding of the specific codes of criminal law and judicial procedure in the state of Colorado are prior comments were based upon generalizations steeped in very specific knowledge and experience of codes, procedure, and practices in at least two current U.S. states - as well as the same extremely high degree of "knowing shit" relative to the federal system of laws, procedures, and practices (minus perhaps the knowledge, skills, and experience of the federal tax codes).

I wonder if maybe you are a school teacher? Did you ever get to explore and analyze the tenets of the Marshall Plan? And the differences between a military ruling Junta and it's system of favors/spoils vs. a constitutional monarchy's "peerage" system?

Ever read the Magna Charta? Ever know the relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords and their influences on the modern system of Lobbying in America?

Or maybe in college you read "The Fountainhead" and assumed you knew all about Libertarianism and the limited rights of the individual versus the collective control system?

Ever have to do an analysis on "Billy Budd" or Huxley's "Brave New World"? Or study Lenin; or Ethiopia in the 1950's; or Robert McNamara’s arguments for/against the use of opinion polls and their failed wisdom? Keynesian applications to free market influence? Because they're all components of modern "politics" and the myth of the common rule of a self-sustainable state.

Sue Ellen - do you actually KNOW the theory of sedition which led Virginia to adopt it's motto?


Himmmm said...


Do you know that motto is Latin: "Sic Semper Tyranis"/"Thus Always to Tyrants"? Do you know that it was Ben Franklin - NOT James Madison who witnessed (as did Jefferson) in France the danger and inevitability of the corruption of the bicameral legislature? (Not to mention the Virginia House of Burgesses who threatened the Second Continental Congress with refusal of ratification).

You state that Madison (I assume you mean James), "ensured factions could not rise up and become tyrannical over minorities"? I hope your quaint, nearly childlike naiveté is an attempt at sarcasm and not indicative of your true grasp on how this nation, and indeed, this world - actually work in function and practice. Like when Dwight Eisenhower warned, in his farewell address - of the power of the military-industrial complex.

What Madison (and Paine more specifically - although his was more theory, whereas it was Jefferson's actual implementations)
was doing is nearly as antiquated in modern political practice as the notion of "full representative government".

It has NEVER been so. It has ALWAYS been the FEW ruling the MANY. Which is WHY Franklin said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither". Because the authority of a govt over its citizens rests in it's war powers...AND in its economic system (such as the FED and switching, as Nixon did - to Fiat currency and the loss of the gold standard which put the power into the hands of Wall Street). And, ignoring Franklin - we now are POWERLESS to confront or control our own government to any affect.

We - the people - as citizens in the Republic today, are CONSTANTLY ruled by tyranny. Likewise, the "minority" (whether they be ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic, or any minority) are EVERY DAY dominated by the tyrannical elite. In the US, we call those elite "Congressmen" or "Senators" or MAJOR CAMPAIGN DONORS or even "Special Interests".

Don't believe me?
Try this: Start the clock NOW. You have 24 hours. Go out and find a single citizen in this country who does NOT have a net worth of over $100,000; or does NOT have a flag officer's rank; or does NOT work as an Activist or Lobbyist; or who is NOT a "Celebrity".

Now: if you find such a "regular citizen", tell this person that you want them to contact a CERTAIN PERSON (more on that in a second).

When they make contact, then they must ask to have a single idea which they propose as a NEW Constitutional Amendment to be written, brought before Committee, and passed into the voting body.

Too hard?
Okay, then let's make it simple. Your "regular citizen" must have their CONTACT to have the following entered into the Federal Register:

"My name is _________ and I am from __________ and I am an American Citizen. As such, I want the U.S. Government to pay for medical insurance coverage for every citizen."

Or, conversely, they can have the following entered (same name and town): "...I want the U.S. Government to not pass any legislation to regulate any control over health insurance for our citizens."

The CERTAIN PERSON that this "regular citizen" contacts MUST be ANY ONE of the following:
The U.S. President; or VP; or a Senior Member of Congress (either Rep. or Senator); or a sitting Governor; A cabinet Secretary; any Bishop of the Church; or the CEO of a FORTUNE 50 Corporation.

(And getting a simple "form letter" from their Rep. from the 6th District in Wyoming is NOT the same).

Well, Sue Ellen? Guess what? YOU cannot do it yourself(even if you fit the criteria) and likewise THEY (your regular citizen) CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to achieve this in 24 hours. Probably not even in a week. Nor a month. Likely, not EVER.


Himmmm said...


Why? Because the FEW rule the MANY. Familiar with Pareto's 80/20 Law? The ELITE TYRANTS rule over the MINORITY. THAT is the "political reality" of the USA.

But don't take my "don't know shit" opinion, you can read the results yourself. I can actually cite you empirical data and research on this exact topic in a paper published in 1991 by Prof. Ken Mijeski at East. Tenn. State University (and was adopted and hailed as a landmark paper by the Kennedy School of Govt at Harvard).

If you disagree, and somehow naively assume that government (at any level) is not simply a mechanism of influence and those who use it to their own ends...then I am only left to indeed question the color of sky in your fantasy world.

The "theater of politics" Sue Ellen - is comprised of many variables. You can attribute simple items such as the "Swift Boat" scandal which was engineered against Kerry as a single variable which hurt him. Do you have ANY clue who was behind THAT? It was T. Boone Pickens. DO YOU have any clue on which corporate boards Pickens sits? Or Carl Ichan?

Ever do a link analysis of Terry Lenzner's IGI and his ties to CBS and the NY Times and Wash Post and Time-Warner? Or his relations with the Democrat Party?

The SWIFT BOATING was also the work of the Mellon family in PA, along with Pulitzer winner Carlton Sherwood (who is also a FOX News analyst) to name a few. In the next election, it's Glenn Beck and Bill OReilly.

DO you not know who runs FOX News? Ever heard of Roger Alies? A Republican activist who worked for Nixon. Ever hear of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp? Still don't think Hollywood is not tied to the White House?

And it cuts both ways. The Repubs fielded a weak candidate in John McCain for a reason. The Dems fielded a candidate MADE in Hollywood. Would you like to see who donated to the OBAMA campaign?

Wanna see what a difference David Geffen made in OBAMA over HILARY? Or Graydon Carter's power pulls?
Or Oprah?

Do you NOT really know who Ari Emanuel is? Do you NOT know his brother is the Chief of Staff for Obama?

Can you - as a mature adult - tell me that the popular support Obama received, and his media-created Cult of Personality" was because he's just "so smart and experienced as a leader"?

Likewise, do you NOT believe that John Edwards was walking on water politically until he hung himself with his sex scandals and powertrips? Do you NOT know that Edwards was protected by the mainstream media?

WHY do you think not a single network or paper or magazine dogged him like they dogged Bush about his drinking/drugs and daughters? WHO broke the story? The ENQUIRER! Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?

You are blind and ill-informed if you don't think those with power (derivative of money, fame, and muscle) make the kings. We can argue this for eternity. - I'd much prefer to sit on a park bench on a pretty Spring day with you, as a stranger, and offer you half of my sandwich and have you tell me about the first boy you kissed when you were young.

Some things are important...some are not. Thank you for your critique and I hope your day is a great one today.

Sue Ellen Mishkey said...


His name was Ryan, and I like ham and swiss on rye.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Himmm (Who I suppose is now the law professor version of Himmmmmmm). I learned more from this gossip site comment and my breast feeding book today than I ever learned in 8 years pursuing a four year degree in some useless liberal art.


Popular Posts from the last 30 days