McFly Wishes He Were Back to the Future
- Feb 27
- 2 min read
Letter to Romans: “Innocent until proven guilty” has always been a bedrock of American law. Perhaps illustrating its importance is Crispin Glover aka “Back to the Future’s” George McFly, who’s accused of “luring” a woman from UK to LA into “sex slavery.”
While we’re not in court hearing the evidence, the shocking Fox News report tells us some salient yet confusing allegations. For sure, Glover stands accused of “battery & fraud,” according to court documents, based among other things, on the actor’s alleged promises of “a home and job” in return for the accuser’s giving up her livelihood & moving to LA. “But when Ms. Doe took the bait & uprooted herself, she found herself in a disturbing situation where Mr. Glover wanted to basically … serve him as a live-in girlfriend/sex slave.” The accuser, a Muslim, seems especially upset that Glover told her to get lost after going to a Mosque & “choking” her when she refused to leave his home. Her attorney argues this to be an “unlawful eviction” (I’ll say) while there were supposed tell-tale “marks” left on her throat. It’s also alleged that Clover’s subsequent petition for a restraining order against her was “fraudulent” as well.
Reflected in those allegations is a remarkable potpourri of actionable theories that sound like Ms. Doe has thrown the “kitchen sink” at her alleged villain. But in a mostly “He said, She said, scenario” like this, can or should any of the above legal theories stick? The verbal agreement to “move to LA” conjures up basic contract law that’s governed by what consenting adults agree to; no force alleged there. And there’s no mention of any promises made being perpetual as in a marriage proposal. Ms. Doe was also physically free to go to a mosque (and elsewhere?). And while Clover may have been a cad in dissing the pursuit of her faith, he would normally have been within his rights to terminate this personal or verbal “employment” relationship “at will.” Given all this animus, that restraining petition was not fraud. So?
Davd Soul




















Comments