Post: #51

(05-18-2015 08:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Good luck trying to enforce "positive agreement," whatever the fuck that shit means. God damn, this completely contradicts the past 2000 years of contract law. An agreement is an agreement and can be implied or explicit. Been that way since the Greek times.

Logistically, something like "positive agreement" is completely impossible to enforce. Again, just by the way the entire legal system is structured keeping something like "positive agreement" would basically mean selective enforcement of the law, since there is no way to reliably meet the burden of proof on "positive agreement" in 95%+ of cases. It just wouldn't be enforced unless some judge or jury had it out for the defendant.

Not only the above makes this proposal unfeasible, but the amount of time and resources spent arguing over "positive agreement" would also probably be outrageous and clog up the legal system to the point where lawyers have no power at all.

This entire proposal is logistically impossible for the legal system and (thankfully) isn't something we need to worry about.

This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. I've seen bullshit cases like this go away in bench trials (criminal defense lawyers know they don't need to go with a jury in such situations). Assuming the girl would even bother to show up for something so ridiculous, the defendant waives his right to a jury trial and has a judge make the decision. The trial does like this:

1. Witness for state (girl): He did it.

2. Witness for Defense (defendant): I didn't do it.

Judge: I have two witnesses of equal credibility with no other evidence provided, so there's some doubt as to whether he did it. Therefore, not guilty.

Any attempt at shifting the burden to a criminal defendant to prove anything will eventually get struck down by an appellate court. That's not the way the American criminal justice system works and never will be unless we get a new constitution. Appellate courts know how these kinds of trials are supposed to work. Anything that deviates from this form is going to get stricken and sent back.

Post: #52

(05-19-2015 09:35 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 08:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Good luck trying to enforce "positive agreement," whatever the fuck that shit means. God damn, this completely contradicts the past 2000 years of contract law. An agreement is an agreement and can be implied or explicit. Been that way since the Greek times.

Logistically, something like "positive agreement" is completely impossible to enforce. Again, just by the way the entire legal system is structured keeping something like "positive agreement" would basically mean selective enforcement of the law, since there is no way to reliably meet the burden of proof on "positive agreement" in 95%+ of cases. It just wouldn't be enforced unless some judge or jury had it out for the defendant.

Not only the above makes this proposal unfeasible, but the amount of time and resources spent arguing over "positive agreement" would also probably be outrageous and clog up the legal system to the point where lawyers have no power at all.

This entire proposal is logistically impossible for the legal system and (thankfully) isn't something we need to worry about.

This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. I've seen bullshit cases like this go away in bench trials (criminal defense lawyers know they don't need to go with a jury in such situations). Assuming the girl would even bother to show up for something so ridiculous, the defendant waives his right to a jury trial and has a judge make the decision. The trial does like this:

1. Witness for state (girl): He did it.

2. Witness for Defense (defendant): I didn't do it.

Judge: I have two witnesses of equal credibility with no other evidence provided, so there's some doubt as to whether he did it. Therefore, not guilty.

Any attempt at shifting the burden to a criminal defendant to prove anything will eventually get struck down by an appellate court. That's not the way the American criminal justice system works and never will be unless we get a new constitution. Appellate courts know how these kinds of trials are supposed to work. Anything that deviates from this form is going to get stricken and sent back.

Yes. And to get rid of the reasonable doubt clause would require a COMPLETE overhaul of how our justice system works. So much of the system is predicated on jury decision on that standard, to deviate it from it would mean entire new rules and systems.

Quite frankly, trying to shove that down the throats of Americans would be more effort than it's worth even for the most diehard of leftists or feminists. They would find another way to implement their nefarious schemes that go around the criminal court system.

For example, look at family law. No need for reasonable doubt there. The feminists hijacked a specialty court centered around marriage and children. But this isn't enough for feminists, since men can evade the family courts by avoiding marriage. Even children outside of marriage does not offer the family courts the same level of power over a man as does signing that marriage contract.

Since men are avoiding marriage right now, feminists are trying to find more ways to ruin men which is why these laws were drafted in the first place. However, "positive agreement" as proposed above is logistically impossible. For certain, however, these feminists will come back with a different approach.

Feminists are easy to predict, because they are women: they keep trying to do things until someone finally does not say "no." Right now, it's feminists asking if they can change the reasonable doubt standard and develop a new system of law, and the answer is "No way bitch, way too much work." The feminists will find some other angle guaranteed.

Post: #53

If this goes through feminists will be able to say "100% of women have been raped."

For attention, a girl will be able to go on Oprah and say "My father raped me every day. He would kiss me on the forehead before school in the morning... WITHOUT ASKING!" and burst into tears.

Post: #54

(05-19-2015 09:35 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. I've seen bullshit cases like this go away in bench trials (criminal defense lawyers know they don't need to go with a jury in such situations). Assuming the girl would even bother to show up for something so ridiculous, the defendant waives his right to a jury trial and has a judge make the decision. The trial does like this:

1. Witness for state (girl): He did it.

2. Witness for Defense (defendant): I didn't do it.

Judge: I have two witnesses of equal credibility with no other evidence provided, so there's some doubt as to whether he did it. Therefore, not guilty.

Any attempt at shifting the burden to a criminal defendant to prove anything will eventually get struck down by an appellate court. That's not the way the American criminal justice system works and never will be unless we get a new constitution. Appellate courts know how these kinds of trials are supposed to work. Anything that deviates from this form is going to get stricken and sent back.

Plenty of times that system failed for example during the Mike Tyson trial. There was plenty of evidence that did not make sense on the side of the girl, but they still convicted him. For example - the girl admitted to going to the bathroom and coming out without her underwear on. Evidence was withheld by the prosecution of the fact that she had already accused a previous boyfriend of rape. Even witness statements of Tyson's crew were discredited who again contradicted her account.

Juries can be manipulated to react like an emotional 4 year old and a corrupt judge can do whatever he or she wants. Especially family law decisions are chock full of outrageous results where children get taken away on any whim.

The legal system has long been broken. You cannot trust it at all.

Post: #55

I wanted to update this very important thread with some GREAT NEWS:

On May 17 2016, the ALI held a vote on this proposal to make "affirmative consent" the new standard for model penal code sexual assault law.

The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected:

https://www.thefire.org/american-law-ins...enal-code/

Quote:American Law Institute Rejects ‘Affirmative Consent’ Standard for Model Penal Code

According to a report today in The Washington Times, the membership of the American Law Institute (ALI) voted overwhelmingly against amending ALI’s Model Penal Code (MPC) to include an “affirmative consent” standard in its section on sexual consent. The MPC is an influential, decades-old attempt to standardize common state criminal laws across the United States, and has been adapted for use (at least in part) by most of the 50 states.

The Times reports:

In a voice vote at the American Law Institute’s 93rd annual meeting at the Ritz-Carlton, Washington, D.C., the vast majority of an estimated 500-member crowd declined to amend the Model Penal Code to define sexual consent on an affirmative basis.

The MPC is a leading guide for state legislatures to follow when standardizing their penal codes. One of the items up for debate at the annual meeting was how to define “consent” in the context of sexual assault.

The vote comes less than a week after a large number of ALI members wrote a letter urging ALI to reject the affirmative consent standard, on the grounds that it unfairly shifts the burden of proof to an accused party to prove his or her innocence:

“Whether it is a burden of going forward, a burden of proof, a burden to establish an affirmative defense or something else, the defendant has been burdened to disprove guilt,” they wrote.

Hopefully, colleges and universities—which have increasingly been adopting affirmative consent standards in their own sexual misconduct policies—will take notice of ALI’s decision.

Campus issues aside, ALI’s decision is a relief because it is (or should be) almost unthinkable that in a criminal court, where the defendant’s physical freedom is at stake, an accused person would effectively have to prove him- or herself innocent of sexual assault charges. But even in campus judiciaries, this burden-shifting can have a permanent and harmful effect on students, whose ability to obtain a college degree and, ultimately, a job may be dependent on their ability to prove themselves innocent of sexual misconduct charges. A Tennessee court judge put it well, in an opinion reversing the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s decision to expel a student for sexual misconduct using an affirmative consent standard:

[The accused] must come forward with proof of an affirmative verbal response that is credible in an environment in which there are seldom, if any, witnesses to an activity which requires exposing each party’s most private body parts. Absent the tape recording of a verbal consent or other independent means to demonstrate that consent was given, the ability of an accused to prove the complaining party’s consent strains credulity and is illusory.

The ALI’s rejection of affirmative consent as a standard for adjudicating claims of sexual assault is a positive statement about the importance of due process, which is too often neglected in the assessment of how to effectively address sexual assault on campus and beyond.

This is a very big deal -- not only was this deranged proposal rejected, it was rejected overwhelmingly. Sanity prevails for now, and the overwhelming nature of the vote against it makes it very unlikely that the Year Zero lunatics who were tasked with formulating this proposal will be able to succeed any time soon.

Post: #56

What started out as a joke on "Chappelle's Show" will one day (sadly) be the future of game. I'm sure you all remember this great skit:

Post: #57

Just reading this thread I see a simple interim solution derived from professional photographers - a release form a.k.a. Model Release.

Adapt one for a "Sexual Release" or perhaps a bit more upscale "Romance Release":

Romance Release and Yes Means Yes Consent form:

I <Special Snowflake Name here> hereby attest and certify that I was born on <XYZ> date and am of the Adult age of majority in <XYZ> state as of today's date <__________>. Verified by ID Type here: <____________>. I hereby consent and agree to enter into an Adult Romantic relationship with a man defined as a human male known as <Your Legal name here> and that I agree to all forms of romantic physical contact, including but not limited to public displays of affection and full penetration sexual contact and intercourse including any and all behaviours as indicated in the popular book titled "50 Shades of Gray".

Snowflake Full Legal Name Printed:

Signature:

Witness: (your signature here)

Notary Signature and Seal:

Note if you want to video the encounters just add standard model release images use agreement as well.

Then to be 100% on the safe side use your smart-phone in a flirty way to video her while she reads, fills in and signs the Romance Release and photo her IDs as well - integrate this into standard dominance and compliance game.

Any LMR or hesitation just say:

No Romance - no Finance, No mingle - NO jingle, No honey - no money, No loins - no coins.

Get up and walk away with a simple See ya... and NEXT.

Post: #58

It's like I said before:

Men are going to have to start learning "legal game," in which "escalating" will be redefined as convincing a girl to sign a consent form. A successful "close" will be averting public humiliation and legal consequences for trying to get your dick wet.

Oh, and instead of sending "+1" texts to inform friends of a new notch, you'll be sending "-1" to indicate a dropped charge.

Post: #59

@LeoneVolpe:

I disagree. The stakes will certainly be higher if any new legislation is approved in the future, but the men that are desired and doing it right from day 1 won't have to change. It's the weak and the fakes that get shoved to the front and consumed by the legal turnstile. That's the problem with all of this, we know these lambs, and we don't want to see them go to the slaughter even if they initially reject our way of life.

Post: #60

@Gustavus Adolphus -

I agree. Desirable men will still be found desirable regardless of legislation. I know it can be hard to interpret tone via written word but I was exaggerating to an almost comedic extent to make a point of how foolish this proposed legislation sounds.

As others have already mentioned, the primary thing guys with game will have to watch for is scorned women upset with being pumped and dumped looking for retribution.

Post: #61

I hope we have allies in the legal profession. Many of them went through torturous high school years to secure a place in a top university for undergrad, then had to do it again to get into a top-tier law school. Then to actually pass the bar. They've invested an enormous part of their lives to get into a position to enjoy the fruits of their labors and bang young strange without getting falsely accused of rape, I would sure hope they refuse to allow fags like Stephen Schulhofer to undermine all that they've worked for.