Of course not..
Ego in a weak assed attempt to sugarcoat the failed conviction and award basis…
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom ROG62 » 30 May 2026, 6:49 am » wrote: ↑ Ego in a weak assed attempt to sugarcoat the failed conviction and award basis…
it’s a turd, brown, no matter how much you lick and polish it…
it was a civil case. It pits a "Plaintiff" against a "Respondent"....the outcome is determined by a jury.Ego in a weak assed attempt to sugarcoat the failed conviction and award basis…
so you’re clinging to “standard”?Blackvegetable » 30 May 2026, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑ it was a civil case. It pits a "Plaintiff" against a "Respondent"....the outcome is determined by a jury.
There's no "conviction" involved, and the judge can't "fail"...he can be reversed.
The Plaintiff prevailed. The award exceeded the "standard" by a factor of more than 5.
You're as **** stupid as @Beekeeper
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom You know where I found this?ROG62 » 31 May 2026, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑ so you’re clinging to “standard”?![]()
![]()
![]()
is it a legal guideline written into the annals of the halls of awards? NO! I can guarantee you the jury WAS NOT told what the “standard” was as it’s **** arbitrary…
that’s like the weather people whining or gloating about being above or below normal…WGAFF? where in the **** do you think they come from?![]()
![]()
![]()
GD your stupid hurts…

The local news ran this story.. Amazing.. Usually they just stick to the weather.
no…nor do I care…
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom ROG62 » 31 May 2026, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑ so you’re clinging to “standard”?![]()
![]()
![]()
is it a legal guideline written into the annals of the halls of awards? NO! I can guarantee you the jury WAS NOT told what the “standard” was as it’s **** arbitrary…
that’s like the weather people whining or gloating about being above or below normal…WGAFF? where in the **** do you think they come from?![]()
![]()
![]()
GD your stupid hurts…
Hate is your Honey... Buzz off into your Trump Hive ...Beekeeper » 01 Jun 2026, 5:56 am » wrote: ↑ The part ****-for-brains fails to admit is that Kaplan SAID IN HIS RULING that the JURY DID NOT FIND A RAPE OCCURRED!! So anything he said BEYOND THAT is nothing but Kaplan's BIASED OPINION and nothing more!! Yet, Cupcake wants to blow that into "Trump's a rapist" and all that does is PROVE the stupid the flows from the loins of that piece of ****!! I would bet she superglues his/her piss flaps together every day so she can miserable all day and use that to garner more anger in his life.
Then take the L and keep your uninformed whining to yourself.
You haven't read Judge Kaplan's ruling.Beekeeper » 01 Jun 2026, 5:56 am » wrote: ↑ The part ****-for-brains fails to admit is that Kaplan SAID IN HIS RULING that the JURY DID NOT FIND A RAPE OCCURRED!! So anything he said BEYOND THAT is nothing but Kaplan's BIASED OPINION and nothing more!! Yet, Cupcake wants to blow that into "Trump's a rapist" and all that does is PROVE the stupid the flows from the loins of that piece of ****!! I would bet she superglues his/her piss flaps together every day so she can miserable all day and use that to garner more anger in his life.
Mryland has red edges.. I live in one... And I could give a **** about this story.
Beekeeper » 01 Jun 2026, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑ And in case you missed it, a JUDGE cannot change the LAW in
You haven't read Judge Kaplan's opinion.Beekeeper » 01 Jun 2026, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑ "The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law"
Sucks, for you, huh, CUPCAKE!! Your OWN WORDS kick your *** again!!
Blackvegetable » 01 Jun 2026, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑ You haven't read Judge Kaplan's opinion.
You can shut the **** up now.
Blackvegetable » 01 Jun 2026, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑ You haven't read either the petition, or Kaplan's response.
Just shut the **** up.