Trenton: Imagine this: A man woos a woman to bed with
tales of his riches, fast cars and a vacation home in Monaco. But he actually lives in his mother’s basement.
Or this: A seemingly wealthy widow convinces a younger man to sleep with her on the notion that they may marry and he’ll inherit her money. In reality, she’s broke.

In both cases, someone lied about his or her status in order to have sex with someone else.
Under a bill recently proposed by a south Jersey lawmaker, such actions would not only be considered dishonest. They could prompt charges of rape.
Earlier this month, state Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D- Burlington) introduced the bill (A3908), which would create the crime of “sexual assault by fraud,” which it defines as “an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not.”

Singleton decided to introduce the legislation after talking to Florence resident Mischele Lewis, who had been duped into paying $5,000 to her boyfriend, Cherry Hill resident William Allen Jordan, for what he claimed was a security clearance.
Jordan said he was a British military official, but it turned out he was a serial bigamist and scam artist who pleaded guilty to defrauding Lewis on Nov. 10.
Prosecutors had initially tried to charge Jordan with sexual assault by coercion, but a grand jury refused to indict him on that charge.
“I truly believe that we have to look at the issue of rape as more than sexual contact without consent,” Singleton said. “Fraud invalidates any semblance of consent just as forcible sexual contact does. This legislation is designed to provide our state's judiciary with another tool to assess situations where this occurs and potentially provide a legal remedy to those circumstances.”

As written, the bill doesn’t consider sexual assault by fraud any less serious than other types of sexual assault that are already on the books. It could be a first degree or second degree crime depending on “the circumstances surrounding the act,” punishable with 10 to 20 years in prison in the former and 5 to 10 years in prison in the latter.
"The punishment aspect, that part we didn’t touch. The prosecutors and the judges and the jurors would be able to use discretion,” Singleton said.
Singleton said that he’s open to refining the bill so it’s not abused.
“It’s my intention, as the bill is moved through the amendment process, to ensure that while we allow for judicial discretion we don’t want unintended consequences,” he said.

The issue of “rape-by-fraud" is the subject of a new book by New York City resident Joyce M. Short, who said she married a man who lied about his age, marital status, education and military service, among other things.

Short, who has met with Lewis, said, “(Jordan) hadn’t threatened her. Quite the contrary. He had seduced her. But he had seduced her through a hoax, through a fraudulent means.
And just like Bernie Madoff is in prison because he stole money from people by defrauding them, someone can vitiate your knowing consent by defrauding you in order to have sex.”
Short said that one of the main objections people have to the idea of sexual assault by fraud is equating it with violent sexual assault.
“My response to that is there are many ways to sexually assault a person. Violence is one of them. And there are no words that can come to relating the horrible violation of a person when that happens to them,” Short said. “But we should not look asunder. We should not simply cast away the concept that people are defrauded of sex.”

According to a memo by the Office of Legislative Services written at Singleton’s request, at least five states — Tennessee, Alabama, California, Colorado and Montana — have some sort of crime for sex by fraud. In Alabama, it’s a lesser offense than rape.
Alan Zegas — a prominent New Jersey criminal defense attorney who has represented many defendants accused of sexual assault — said the Singleton’s bill is far too broad and probably would not survive a constitutional challenge.
“What if a man were to say to a woman ‘I love you’ and engage in sex and he really didn’t love her? It could be as simple as that,” Zegas said. “The definition is so broad that it doesn’t put the citizens of the state on fair notice of what it is that constitutes the crime.”

Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld in a 2013 article for the Yale Law Journal said that “’Rape-by-deception’ is almost universally rejected in American criminal law,” but that it shouldn’t be because “courts have held for a hundred years in virtually every area of the law outside of rape, a consent procured through deception is no consent at all.”

Rubenfeld said that in many states that do have statutes on rape by fraud, it’s only if the perpetrator impersonates the victim’s spouse or dupes the victim into having sex for medical reasons. But Rubenfeld said that’s because the case law is based on an outdated definition of rape that wasn’t really about the victim’s consent, but about her virtue.
“Rape law’s exclusion of almost all sex-by-deception claims followed from the fact that in such cases the woman had willingly had non-marital sex. Though deceived, she had willingly surrendered her virtue and thus could not claim rape,’” Rubenfeld wrote.

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html

Cc:
Ilekokonit
AlutaContinua
SirShymex
Kay17
Coogar
Mondisweets
Pickabeau1
Naijababe

Your thoughts, please.

Lol, this is just idi.otic, and yanks have gone nuts.

Life is about survival of the fittest. And if you can sell people a dream, and make them have consensual se.x with you - I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. That's not ra.pe. It can only be ra.pe when there's no consent.

Yanks have never been the sharpest tool in the shed. And don't these clowns have more important issues to pass bills on?

SirShymex:
Lol, this is just idi.otic, and yanks have gone nuts.

Life is about survival of the fittest. And if you can sell people a dream, and make them have consensual se.x with you - I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. That's not ra.pe. It can only be ra.pe when there's no consent.

Yanks have never been the sharpest tool in the shed. And don't these clowns have more important issues to pass bills on?

I was incredulous when I cam across this nonsense. I'd have ignored this sort of thing before now but look what happen with the yes means yes thing (m.nydailynews.com/new-york/yes-means-yes-norm-n-y-campuses-article-1.2044451), it's spreading and will become the norm and tomorrow one daftie will try to introduce that farce here. I'm stumped.

Timbuktou:
I was incredulous when I cam across this nonsense. I'd have ignored this sort of thing before now but look what happen with the yes means yes thing (m.nydailynews.com/new-york/yes-means-yes-norm-n-y-campuses-article-1.2044451), it's spreading and will become the norm and tomorrow one daftie will try to introduce that farce here. I'm stumped.

The bill itself is confused.

I honestly don't even think anyone can win a ra.pe case based on this premise in a court of law, since there's consent.

Just a waste of time, really.

SirShymex:


The bill itself is confused.

I honestly don't even think anyone can win a ra.pe case based on this premise in a court of law, since there's consent.

Just a waste of time, really.

we'll have to wait and see, won't we? The US seems to become more ridiculous by the day. They are gravitating towards a police state.

Its not anybodies fault that they were gullible enough to be to be duped, afterall they both enjoyed it.....and by the way what happens if a lawyer can prove she willingly gave her self,or file a countersue that she was in it because she was hoping to reap some reward, *more like sex base on deceit*
Although this bill was base on good intention,I still think is flawed.

Fkforyou:
Its not anybodies fault that they were gullible enough to be to be duped, afterall they both enjoyed it.....and by the way what happens if a lawyer can prove she willingly gave her self,or file a countersue that she was in it because she was hoping to reap some reward, *more like sex base on deceit*
Although this bill was base on good intention,I still think is flawed.

I think this primarily bill sets out to protect women from sexu@l assault, any benefit men could accrue from it is just collateral damage. After all, only women can be r@ped.

While seemingly absurd it's a way forward in trying to ensure consent given is given in a transparent manner


The issue now is what enter mines a reasonable measure of expectation before you can say a lady was not defrauded


If I own a jalopy but she assumed I owned a limo..can she sue for râpe

If I live like a boss but am a credit case can I be sued

The boundaries are limitless and depends on what the woman will think is a good level for a man that she will have given consent to
Where does it stop

At best the issue should be a misdemeanor
The real râpists need to be caught

How does anyone want to prove that it was by fraud?

pickabeau1:

At best the issue should be a misdemeanor
The real râpists need to be caught

A misdemeanour, you say? Lol. You're being too generous with people's liberties there. Going by this bill, every human should be in jail for almost every lie they tell, because humans lie for benefit which wouldn't probably be eligible for if they were forthright.

About the "real r@pists", is it a dearth of elements in this group that has led to a rise in false sexu@l assault claims? Heard about Jackie from University of Virginia?

Timbuktou:
A misdemeanour, you say? Lol. You're being too generous with people's liberties there. Going by this bill, every human should be in jail for almost every lie they tell, because humans lie for benefit which wouldn't probably be eligible for if they were forthright.

Exactly

About the "real r@pists", is it a dearth of elements in this group that has led to a rise in false sexu@l assault claims? Heard about Jackie from University of Virginia?

No..what happened

SirShymex:


The bill itself is confused.

I honestly don't even think anyone can win a ra.pe case based on this premise in a court of law, since there's consent.

Just a waste of time, really.

they will win.
there was a case of a woman that told her hubby not to ejaculatë in her during intercöurse. that was the condition she gave before sėx. during the act, hubby came in her. she took the matter to court that she was räped based on the technicality that she only gave consent to sex & not ejäculation.

the judges agreed with her & she won the case. this is husband & wife - so tell me why a woman wouldn't win if she thinks she was räped by fraud. her angle would be she consented to have sex with the man based on his elevated status he had put as a facade - if she knew he wasn't as cool as he made himself to be, she wouldn't have given consent to shäg him.


trust me, the judges in our courts today would agree with her.

Timbuktou:
I was incredulous when I cam across this nonsense. I'd have ignored this sort of thing before now but look what happen with the yes means yes thing (m.nydailynews.com/new-york/yes-means-yes-norm-n-y-campuses-article-1.2044451), it's spreading and will become the norm and tomorrow one daftie will try to introduce that farce here. I'm stumped.

cases like this have been existing before today, abeg. anything to put men in shackles is just fine by the "you-know-who." do women get charged for paternity fraud? never! there's no law in the constitution that can put any woman in prison for deliberately lying about the paternity of her child but some of us men may get convicted for räping by fraud.

so be warned.....
if she consents only to missionary style & you add döggystyle in the heat of the moment, you could be charged for räpe. if your accent is americanised & she fell for it only to realise you are a blood nigerian and you don't possess the blue passport, you are a räpe-fraud.

pickabeau1:



Exactly

No..what happened

A "r@pe victim" named names and gave a touching account of an assault that never happened and what was supposed to be a respectable institution was vilified for the sake of someone's words. Her story was published in the Rolling Stone and the world ran with it:

www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

And then the Washington Post tried to do some "justice" to it:

www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-put-their-names-to-account-of-attack-aftermath/2014/12/12/ea83fcce-822b-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html

carefreewannabe:
How does anyone want to prove that it was by fraud?

Ask the law-maker in a civilised country where the rights of women are "protected".

coogar:


so be warned.....
if she consents only to missionary style & you add döggystyle in the heat of the moment, you could be charged for räpe. if your accent is americanised & she fell for it only to realise you are a blood nigerian and you don't possess the blue passport, you are a räpe-fraud.

Hehehe. Sounds to me like the state is institutionalising the cuckolding men out there. Don't know how you guys gon handle this mess. Seems to be getting worse

Timbuktou:
Hehehe. Sounds to me like the state is institutionalising the cuckolding men out there. Don't know how you guys gon handle this mess. Seems to be getting worse

iphone camera or the the iphone mic is the saviour.

coogar:


they will win.
there was a case of a woman that told her hubby not to ejaculatë in her during intercöurse. that was the condition she gave before sėx. during the act, hubby came in her. she took the matter to court that she was räped based on the technicality that she only gave consent to sex & not ejäculation.

the judges agreed with her & she won the case. this is husband & wife - so tell me why a woman wouldn't win if she thinks she was räped by fraud. her angle would be she consented to have sex with the man based on his elevated status he had put as a facade - if she knew he wasn't as cool as he made himself to be, she wouldn't have given consent to shäg him.


trust me, the judges in our courts today would agree with her.

cases like this have been existing before today, abeg. anything to put men in shackles is just fine by the "you-know-who." do women get charged for paternity fraud? never! there's no law in the constitution that can put any woman in prison for deliberately lying about the paternity of her child but some of us men may get convicted for räping by fraud.

so be warned.....
if she consents only to missionary style & you add döggystyle in the heat of the moment, you could be charged for räpe. if your accent is americanised & she fell for it only to realise you are a blood nigerian and you don't possess the blue passport, you are a räpe-fraud.

Well, that is different cos in this case se.x must have given whoever the accused is, consent to shag her. And that can't be classified as rap.e technically. The only issue is that he sold her a dream.

Misrepresentation/fraud - yes. Ra.pe - no.

I don't even know how women can allow this useless bill, when they cry about objectification all the time. This bill is directly/ indirectly objectifying the pum as a commodity lol. Materialism is about to destroy humanity.

Timbuktou:
A "r@pe victim" named names and gave a touching account of an assault that never happened and what was supposed to be a respectable institution was vilified for the sake of someone's words. Her story was published in the Rolling Stone and the world ran with it:

www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

And then the Washington Post tried to do some "justice" to it:

www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-put-their-names-to-account-of-attack-aftermath/2014/12/12/ea83fcce-822b-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html

Ok..will read it later

Unless the process for proving there was fraud involved is very rigorous this would be the most easily manipulated law because all you have to do is catch any discrepancy in your partners life to claim rape by fraud. I don't even want such a law in existence because you can not legislate discernment and wisdom in people's mind. If you a grown adult cannot choose a sexual partner properly why should the courts be bothered with it? Was it the court who made the choice for you? If your greed made you jump into bed with somebody then hard luck buddy!

SirShymex:


Well, that is different cos in this case se.x must have given whoever the accused is, consent to shag her. And that can't be classified as rap.e technically. The only issue is that he sold her a dream.

Misrepresentation/fraud - yes. Ra.pe - no.

I don't even know how women can allow this useless bill, when they cry about objectification all the time. This bill is directly/ indirectly objectifying the pum as a commodity lol. Materialism is about to destroy humanity.

Bruv, women have been striving to become sexx objects for more than 50 years now. Their hardwork is finally paying but they don't appreciate the results. As a man, what do you really need a woman for in today's world?

Timbuktou:
Bruv, women have been striving to become sexx objects for more than 50 years now. Their hardwork is finally paying but they don't appreciate the results. As a man, what do you really need a woman for in today's world?

Bruv, regardless of how belligerent, loathsome, and disrespectful a lot of these women are today - the companionship they bring to table is a necessity in life. We as men just need to pick the good ones amongst them.

A good woman is worth more than hundreds of friends. However, to find the right one is just an uphill task. Also, when you become a dad, you just need the support system women provide, to be able to raise/nurture ya kids.

SirShymex:


Bruv, regardless of how belligerent, loathsome, and disrespectful a lot of these women are today - the companionship they bring to table is a necessity in life. We as men just need to pick the good ones amongst them.

A good woman is worth more than hundreds of friends. However, to find the right one is just an uphill task. Also, when you become a dad, you just need the support system women provide, to be able to raise/nurture ya kids.

Of course, women are important in the family. The problem is the modern orientation of the female agency. Look throughout history, almost every society has a similar approach to man-woman relationships. Look at the attempt at changing it and the current structure of society. As you said, it's about finding the right woman, I don't believe a good woman exists in the true sense of the word, or a good man for that matter.

SirShymex:


Well, that is different cos in this case se.x must have given whoever the accused is, consent to shag her. And that can't be classified as rap.e technically. The only issue is that he sold her a dream.

Misrepresentation/fraud - yes. Ra.pe - no.

I don't even know how women can allow this useless bill, when they cry about objectification all the time. This bill is directly/ indirectly objectifying the pum as a commodity lol. Materialism is about to destroy humanity.

it's a mockery of the genuine rapê vïctims.

Timbuktou:
Of course, women are important in the family. The problem is the modern orientation of the female agency. Look throughout history, almost every society has a similar approach to man-woman relationships. Look at the attempt at changing it and the current structure of society. As you said, it's about finding the right woman, I don't believe a good woman exists in the true sense of the word, or a good man for that matter.

Good woman in this context means: someone who can compliment you, compatibility, and of the same ideology and outlook to life. You won't find a perfect one, but you'll definitely meet a few who're close to that, regardless of what their motives are.

I know you definitely want to be a dad one day. And to achieve that, you'll need a woman, no? So, if you decide to just have a baby factory, and not a proper wife - don't you think you would be contributing to the agenda of the destructive forces trying to destroy the family structure, thus subconsciously making you part of the problem?

coogar:


it's a mockery of the genuine rapê vïctims.

Lmao...only yanks can pull off a joke like this.

The whole world would be a jail house then.


Heck! It already is

Timbuktou:
I think this primarily bill sets out to protect women from sexu@l assault, any benefit men could accrue from it is just collateral damage. After all, only women can be r@ped.

Only women can be raped?
I just hope you are being sarcastic.

Fkforyou:

Only women can be raped?
I just hope you are being sarcastic.

I really hope so because it will mean the stupid law is also a sexist one that does not protect men.

Fkforyou:

Only women can be raped?
I just hope you are being sarcastic.

Actually, I'm not. Apparently, that's what the letter of the law states. Coogar might help you understand this if he's up to it.

with all this their over-detailed legislations and hair-splitting on the most flippant issues of life, dese moffuggin whiteys will soon tie their own nuts in a knot, i swear!

SirShymex:


Well, that is different cos in this case se.x must have given whoever the accused is, consent to shag her. And that can't be classified as rap.e technically. The only issue is that he sold her a dream.

Misrepresentation/fraud - yes. Ra.pe - no.

I don't even know how women can allow this useless bill, when they cry about objectification all the time. This bill is directly/ indirectly objectifying the pum as a commodity lol. Materialism is about to destroy humanity.

I see.
As usual, your eyes go red whenever you think an agenda favours women but calma, it's not just for the women. Based on that law, a man can also charge a woman if he thinks the woman made a fool out of him. It's for both genders. As you can see, it's good to engage that brain of yours at all time.
Whatever, I don't see why such law should be allowed. Are they telling us humans are brainless dolls lacking intelligence whatsoever? It's not anyone fault if someone chose to act like one.