Maggie’s Tattoo Artist Owns His Ex LMAO (PIC)

shankster..

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 11, 2004
3,089
55
North Idaho
http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/p...m-dayton-oh-was


tumblr_lv9wahoia61qar86bo1_500.jpg


Tattoo 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.
 
Re: Tattoo Artist Owns His Ex LMAO (PIC)

He really should have done a better job. He had to know that this was going to make headlines somewhere - if you're gonna tat someone up with a great big pile of crap and some flies, make it an awesome looking pile of crap with some kick-ass flies. That way you get some free publicity for your great work.

Props for an awesome revenge plot, minus 1,000 for execution and thinking like a woman.
 
Re: Tattoo Artist Owns His Ex LMAO (PIC)

Go to a decent tattoo artist, have them put a cone below it and do something creating with the BS above it.

Before you know it you have an ice cream cone with butterflies hovering over it in the clouds...

The guys will be drooling as they pound the memories of this ex out of her.
 
Re: Tattoo Artist Owns His Ex LMAO (PIC)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pdogsbeware</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of curiosity, why are consent forms meaningless? I can understand if it's because/if she was intoxicated, is that it? </div></div>

Mostly because courts these days will take just about any argument amounting to it being signed under duress or any other various undue influence arguments. Also, if we were to assume this a factual case, we could also likely assume the contractee lacking of sound mind renders any contact voidable. The first two being more law interpretation by the courts, the third and last being contract law as written and established with case law.

Never enter into any contract with anyone who is not of sound mind, for that contract is voidable. Same goes for those not yet reaching the age of majority.