I did, MORON!! In KAPLANS JURY INSTRUCTIONS!!
Why was he obliged to opine?
It doesn't change the FACT that Question 1 was answered NO and question 2 was answered YES!! AND that question 3 was skipped to answer #4!!
ing from @Blackvegetable is so satisfying!!
Answer first, THEN qualify..
Paxton Factshuns..Beekeeper » 01 Sep 2026, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑ It doesn't change the FACT that Question 1 was answered NO and question 2 was answered YES!! AND that question 3 was skipped to answer #4!!
Tell us what question #1's answer was, pumpkin!! THERE'S your answer!!![]()
![]()
![]()
ing from @Blackvegetable is so satisfying!!
Chase me!!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's yet another lie.
Blackvegetable » 01 Sep 2026, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑ He didn't...
By mutual agreement of the parties the jury was asked to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence supported a criminal DEFINITION, not a charge. Because the jury couldn't "convict", and the Plaintiff did not allege rape.
All of this is clear in Judge Kaplan's opinion.
Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to so opine?
Sucks for you, CUPCAKE!!A notable real-world example of this exact legal dynamic occurred in the 2023 civil trial Carroll v. Trump, where the jury found the defendant liable for sexual abuse under a preponderance of the evidence standard, but not rape, because the specific statutory definition of rape was not proven.
Once you acknowledge why, we'll move on to pulling your other wing off...
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 6:51 am » wrote: ↑ Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
https://i.postimg.cc/vZvQ1Rsr/damn-well.gifBlackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 6:50 am » wrote: ↑ Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll