1911 Beta

http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/ ... ton-oh-was

attoo artist Ryan Fitzgerald from Dayton, OH was hit with a $100,000 lawsuit last week by his ex-girlfriend Rossie Brovent. She claims that her boyfriend was supposed to tattoo a scene from Narnia on her back but instead tattooed an image of a pile of excrement with flies buzzing around it.

Apparently, Ryan found out that Rossie had cheated with a long-time friend of his, but instead of confronting her about it he acted like everything was normal and hatched a plan for revenge. Originally, Rossie tried to have Ryan charged with assault, but the ingenious tattoo artist had covered his bases by plying Rossie with wine and tequila shots and getting her to sign a consent form that stated the design was “at the artist’s discretion.”

No word from Rossie on whether the illicit night of passion with Ryan’s friend was worth it. Moral of the story? Never cheat on a tattoo artist.

Uh... this is mutilation.

She commits adultery so he perpetrates a humiliating, permanent disfigurement of her body. You think that's a proportionate response?

Great "revenge"

EDIT: this is like that episode of The View or whatever housewives' talk show it was where Sharon Osborne and her friends were having a big laugh, giving high fives over the news story about a woman who cut her husband's dick off and threw it in the sink disposal.

i'm pretty sure its fake now.

Rob wrote:Uh... this is mutilation.

She commits adultery so he perpetrates a humiliating, permanent disfigurement of her body. You think that's a proportionate response?

Great "revenge"

EDIT: this is like that episode of The View or whatever housewives' talk show it was where Sharon Osborne and her friends were having a big laugh, giving high fives over the news story about a woman who cut her husband's dick off and threw it in the sink disposal.

How are you able to type so well while sitting up there on your high horse?

LLOLoloLOLoLOl

But seriously, I agree. Getting cheated on doesn't call for going this far. I hope it's fake, because then I can laugh at it without feeling like an ass.

She claims that her boyfriend was supposed to tattoo a scene from Narnia on her back but instead...

whatever, if its real and she signed the consent form in all legal aspects shes responsible for her actions.

looks better than hXc's tattoo.... just sayin

Rambizzle wrote:looks better than hXc's tattoo.... just sayin

Rob wrote:Uh... this is mutilation.

She commits adultery so he perpetrates a humiliating, permanent disfigurement of her body. You think that's a proportionate response?

Great "revenge"

EDIT: this is like that episode of The View or whatever housewives' talk show it was where Sharon Osborne and her friends were having a big laugh, giving high fives over the news story about a woman who cut her husband's dick off and threw it in the sink disposal.

I like how you are able to separate emotional abuse from physical abuse.

Rambizzle wrote:looks better than hXc's tattoo.... just sayin

he should have just cheated harder with her sister/friend...

scorch- wrote:I like how you are able to separate emotional abuse from physical abuse.

Watch The View often, Rob?

Maybe.

unpro wrote:whatever, if its real and she signed the consent form in all legal aspects shes responsible for her actions.

Because, clearly, when you think someone is going to use discretion they're going to do this.

Is contractual consent viable in court if one of the signers was coherced into getting drunk by another signer?

The whore deserved it

Prove she was drunk.

Miller` wrote:Is contractual consent viable in court if one of the signers was coherced into getting drunk by another signer?

Who cares? When women say "no" they really mean "yes" anyways... right?

only after you give them ~8 shots or so Dan

Anyone actually belives this?

Miller` wrote:Is contractual consent viable in court if one of the signers was coherced into getting drunk by another signer?

I believe that she would have to prove beyond any doubt that he knew she was completely intoxicated AND intentionally took advantage of it.

So basically, if the guy has any intelligence/restraint what-so-ever, and didn't leave a trail bragging about what he had done, the contract would stand.

Gee, can you nerds take this more personally? This is funny shit, regardless if it's real or not.

How is this worse than people uploading their porn videos with ex girlfriends for the world to see? Which is a much, much more common occurrence.

BrentMusburger wrote:

Miller` wrote:Is contractual consent viable in court if one of the signers was coherced into getting drunk by another signer?

I believe that she would have to prove beyond any doubt that he knew she was completely intoxicated AND intentionally took advantage of it.

So basically, if the guy has any intelligence/restraint what-so-ever, and didn't leave a trail bragging about what he had done, the contract would stand.

Contract will stand unless she can prove some sort of duress when signing the document. If this is real, she'll likely lose her case.

Rambizzle wrote:looks better than hXc's tattoo.... just sayin

yeah i was just going to say...worse things have happened when people get tattoos intentionally

Gee, can you nerds take this more personally? This is funny shit

Pun intended?

This is real so I read.

And before doing the tattoo as the guy is a professional tattoist, he made her girlfriend sign an term of bestowal in order to grant him no punishments or complains whatsoever about the drawning.

I slightly agree with Rob because both were abuses and how people reacts to it can (and mostly likely often) be totally different. Nowadays average people accepts things like open relationships but as people pushed these things to the edge, their limits were also changed.

Other than that... yeah, sad story.

james- wrote:Gee, can you nerds take this more personally? This is funny shit, regardless if it's real or not.

Morals > humor. Even on the internet.

umad?

alex kirk wrote:

james- wrote:Gee, can you nerds take this more personally? This is funny shit, regardless if it's real or not.

Humor > morals.

you had it backwards good sir. I fixed it for you.

avenger wrote:Humor > morals.

you had it backwards good sir. I fixed it for you.

Thanks, pooky bear.
Do you mind if I call you pooky bear, seanavengernou?
Thanks, pooky bear.

let that be a lesson. generally speaking, you never know who you're dealing with and what people are capable of. so don't be a scum bag and cheat on someone and bad things wont happen to you.

sevEN wrote:let that be a lesson. generally speaking, you never know who you're dealing with and what people are capable of. so don't be a scum bag and cheat on someone and bad things wont happen to you.

My name is Joey, and I am now the third most active poster on 1911 but I don't have time to come online and frag with my nutritional adviser and best e-friend of all time, Alex Kirk.

You have to have capacity to sign a contract, but the onus is on her to demonstrate that she lacked it at the time it was made.

However, there is quite a bit to protect her in contract law, namely reliance theory and reasonable expectations.

Did you figure out perpetuities yet?

Sears wrote:Did you figure out perpetuities yet?

Perpetuities is some basic shit bro. 1L come on

scorch- wrote:

Sears wrote:Did you figure out perpetuities yet?

Perpetuities is some basic shit bro. 1L come on

I know. Have you ever seen "A lawyer walks into a Bar" ?

At one point they ask all the people they've been following in the movie about perpetuities and none of them can answer, and I'm like wtf they found a bunch of retards, fail movie.

Sears wrote:

scorch- wrote:

Sears wrote:Did you figure out perpetuities yet?

Perpetuities is some basic shit bro. 1L come on

I know. Have you ever seen "A lawyer walks into a Bar" ?

At one point they ask all the people they've been following in the movie about perpetuities and none of them can answer, and I'm like wtf they found a bunch of retards, fail movie.

Well, the rule of/against perpetuities isn't even law. No one remembers it because it's some pointless shit they teach you as a 1L because it explains some social/ecomonic factors courts use to assess new cases. If you asked me to explain it today, all I could tell you is that it's bad for people owning property now to be able to decide what is done with the property when they no longer own it, so generally courts will invalidate contracts and provisions that provide for that (I think the rule itself only applied to wills, but I can't remember). In the class, you had to learn all the ins and outs of cases and hypotheticals like the septagenarian cunt or whatever it was called. Basically, it was a waste of my time and (lots of) money same as pretty much everything else in law school.

e: never seen the movie. worth a watch?

scorch- wrote:never seen the movie. worth a watch?

It is, if only for it's expose on just the degree in which exponentially far too many people are forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars for their legal education when they really have no business practicing. I think it's on netflix streaming.

Cool, might check it out when I'm extremely bored. Already paid 60k for a personal expose on the topic.

scorch- wrote:Cool, might check it out when I'm extremely bored. Already paid 60k for a personal expose on the topic.

lol


And it's the only law a lawyer and fuck up and not be admonished for by the American Bar Association.