babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Was this ruled in Ontario? Please advice. A Sexual Battery claim is being laid in this case against the perp as he misrepresnted himself as adifferent person as well as unmarried to which the victim consented to have a relationship. However, it seems to be a Novel case in Ontario. Please can you give some details of the sexual assault case you mention or at least in which state. Would help immensely in this matter.
I'm not a lawyer, but you could always google "fraud vitiates consent". It's a pretty well documented component of law, and if I recall correctly, the only fraud which is typically actionable in this regard is failure to disclose a disease or other potential source of physical harm to a prospective partner. Everything else falls under the category of "being a jerk".
In other words, if telling someone that you're a rich, famous Hollywood producer in order to get laid is not illegal. Pretending to be single when you're in a relationship is not illegal. Claiming to be HIV- if you're HIV+ (thus exposing a partner to potential physical harm) is illegal.
It seems to me that the victim(s) involved ought to speak to the police first and see what happens. This certainly won't be the only time they've dealt with something like this.
Well, this is what happened: The video tapes of intimate nature and the anonymous email was recieved by Victim (as she was going to expose his reality) in first week of December. The victim immediately contacted the police. The York regional police took it upon themselves to take an affidavit of thevictim on camera and package the whole case and hand it over to the Toronto police since the video taping happened at a toronto address. The Toronto police kept going back and forth back and forth, contradicting their statement etc from December to April. Sometimes they gave excuse of not being able to schedule a meeting with the perp due to clash in their schedules, sometimes they said it was the holidays, sometimes they said they are not sure if the Crown will file a charge of Voyeurism as their was not evidence and then they said the Crowns response is not clear .Then they finally said the persons lawyer has informed them that he will not talk to the police. Basically they kept stretching the issue till the person got time to get a lawyer and say that he will not talk to police. After two weeks of this, the Toronto police said the Crown has decided not to pursue the matter since they cannot convict based on the evidence present. When asked by the victim her case file #, the toronto police responded that they have not been able to enter the occurences in the system, when they finish entering it, they will let her know and she can get the information from the "freedom of informastion" office.She still does not have her case file #.
In the meanwhile this person filed a defamation claim against the victim as she had mentioned about him on a few websites to caution other women. The victim consulted with her lawyer and they decided to go ahead and justify the defamation and file a counter claim of sexual battery. The victim's lawyer also mentioned since it was a novel case. he would like to get the "Star" involved. When the other side heard it, they immediately wanted to take their defamation claim back. Now why would they want to take their defamation claim back if they really feel defamed?
Anyway, Snert thanks for the google phrase. Wilf Day made a comment about another case, but it seems he has not been logging in. Still need opinions if anyone cares to share.
The disgust I feel about the way the matter was handled by the Toronto police is beyond words!
I actually already found an excellent link when I googled "fraud vitiates Consent" and it actually supports the statement.
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/stable/2022824?seq=1&Search=...
Snert...you are the best..here is another one:
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/124/1/Sexual-Assault/Page1.html
The High Court recognised that the defendant's fraudulent conduct, although not rape, could be punished under as another less serious criminal offence, namely, procuring sexual intercourse by fraud or false pretences. This offence exists in (s 66, Crimes Act 1900). (also under s61R (2) –mistaken as to marriage)
http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/trape.html#E11E3
The ACT provisions on consentThe definition of consent in the ACT is contained in s 92P of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
Where are the Women's right activists in this forum? Don't they want to see justice done in a situation which occurs all the time or has everyone given up?
Well, no harm in giving this issue a delicate push....
Mahmud where are you?
So I'm wondering why, safar, if you already had a babble account, you chose to come back under a succession of aliases--namely, karma09, cosmic10 and our latest manifestation, robindro. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here, nor, really, what the topic of discussion is here. If you'd like to enlighten me, please email me at catchfire [at] rabble.ca. Until then, I'm locking your account, because sock-puppets are not alllowed on babble, particularly banned ones.
I'm also closing this thread.