Friday, January 14, 2011

Not legally binding, but damn good evidence of consent, and funny

See here: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/13/unusual-safety-certi.html

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

While amusing, I question whether it is from the time it claims.

Archivist said...

Me, too.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "While amusing, I question whether it is from the time it claims."

Shades of Dan Rather's "memogate" episode.

It appears to be a produced using a proportional Times New Roman font.

Very unlikely for the 1940's.

slwerner said...

"It appears to be a produced"

[I gotta start proof-reading...]

"It appears to have been produced..."

Archivist said...

My first reaction was that these were not issus in the 1940s. It appears to be a peculiar scam, but it's smartly done.

ScareCrow said...

Yes, very good - however - if such a thing was used, women would just start claiming that violence was used to make them sign it.

And - don't people have 5 business days to void a contract?

Archivist said...

ScareCrow, different states have statutes allowing door-to-door contracts to be voided within so many days.

You are correct. The contract likely is not the type most courts would enforce. In any event could always be challeged as to its formation on the basis of duress. Moreover, it is the type of contract that allows one party to unilaterally terminate at any time without notice (so is it an illusory contract to begin with?).

Druk said...

It may not be an automatically enforced contract, but at the very least it's a piece of evidence that gives you the upper hand in a court setting.

These need to come in business-card size, along with a fingerprinting kit - because signatures are just too formal for the bedroom.

Anonymous said...

A mother and daughter in Arizona are accused of sexually abusing a teenage boy for three years and police say the pair did it without knowing about each other’s relationship with him.

The mother, 48-year-old Susan Brock, allegedly met the boy for trysts when he was 13 and continued for three years until this past October, police said. Her daughter, Rachel, now 21, allegedly sent him nude photos and videos of herself between 2007 and 2008, police said.

The alleged victim, now 17, told cops Susan Brock would pick him up after school in her car and take him to secluded areas where she molested the boy, police said.

The boy claims Rachel Brock abused him at her family’s home. Police said the Brocks did not have intercourse with the boy.

Rachel Brock was arrested Wednesday on three counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. Her mother was arrested in October.

Chandler Police Sgt. Joe Favazzo said the Brocks committed the crimes without each other’s knowledge.

"You have a situation where you have a mother who's abusing a juvenile victim, seemingly unknowingly to the daughter, or vice versa, and the daughter is also abusing the same victim," Favazzo told The Associated Press. "I just can't imagine a mother and daughter having this conversation, and the investigators say they don't have anything indicating the two of them knew about it."

Susan Brock’s husband of 28 years is Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, who announced he was splitting with his wife after her arrest.

"I have filed to divorce my wife. I cannot divorce my daughter," Fulton Brock said. "She is my blood. I will always be her dad. And she needs me now more than ever."

Both women are being held at Maricopa County Jail

billy williams said...

Clever & amusing. Though the part about not being underage, it wouldn't matter if the girl lied, you would still be charged with statutory rape. The contract is funny & good evidence nonetheless.